Submarine Yacht project

[wellmer]

Built a submarine yacht 20 tons in 1996 works well low maintainance cost want to discuss similar projects. See submarine project at www.tolimared.com/submarine
Let me hear your opinion

[Toot]

Wow! Very impressive!

The best part about it, in my humble opinion, is that you can limit the hatch size in order to prevent fat chicks from getting aboard!





(Ok... I know I'm gonna catch hell for saying that, but it's still pretty funny....)

[wellmer]

Hi Toot,
Thanks for your comment - i like the idea - on this small boat hatch diameter is 50 cm - so even big chicks can go in.
I checked the viewport size and found that there are acrylic domes available up to 6 feet diameter - so a hatch must not be that small...

[Toot]

Hi Toot,
Thanks for your comment - i like the idea - on this small boat hatch diameter is 50 cm - so even big chicks can go in.

WHAT WERE YOU THINKING, MAN??!!!!

[Guillermo]

Interesting project, Wil. But it's going to be no easy task.
Have you compared costs against an all steel one?
Cheers,

[wellmer]

Hello Guillermo

I agree that in yacht building steel is better option. - Not so in a submarine.
Walls of a 9m sub are 18 cm thick and have spheric curves - no way to do this in steel.

While you go for al light hull in a yacht you go for a pressure resistant hull in a sub. This is where advantage of making thick walls with little forming effort becomes important.

second, steel needs maintainance, concrete not. This is why oil rig legs and submarine tunnels are made in concrete not in steel.

Even a small sub like my project is a lot more heavier than a similiar sized surface boat - therefore slipping cost is high - so avoiding go to slip during decades is a mayor cost benefit.

My sumarine yacht had lower maintainance cost than similar sized sailing yachts under same mooring conditions. see www.tolimared.com/sumbmarine

[wellmer]

I found that that the link to the website with my concrete submarine yacht proyect is not correct in the last message...here is the right link:
http://imulead.com/tolimared/submarine/

[FranklinRatliff]

Built a submarine yacht 20 tons in 1996 works well low maintainance cost want to discuss similar projects. See submarine project at www.tolimared.com/submarine
Let me hear your opinion

That's just genius.

[MarkC]

Visit www.psubs.org - the web/blog site for self-built submersibles. They have books, articles, plans for sale, photos, reader's projects etc. Everything.

[marshmat]

Very clever little thing, Wilfried. I'm quite impressed.
Curious what you're doing for air supply while submerged, and how you're dealing with carbon dioxide buildup- does it have a lithium hydroxide scrubber, compressed air tanks, etc- or do you just surface when you need to change the air?

[wellmer]

In a 20 ton submarine you have about 20.000 liters of air, you take about 2 liters per breath, and you can rebreath the same air several times until CO2 build up becomes critical - this gives you hours of divetime without air treatment in a submarine yacht.

[longliner45]

is this hull reenforced with steel rebarb? or anything else?,

[wellmer]

Hello Longliner45,

There is no need for experimental concrete in a submarine hull as the forces that appear in a submaine hull of thick walls are the same as in the walls of a submarine tunnel, the legs of a oilrig or the base of a concrete dam.

So reinforcing the concrete with something else than steel would not make any sense.

The reason why you use steelreinforcement in concrete is to give the concrete strenght against tension forces.

Steel and concrete have a very similar extension characteristic when temperature changes - this makes them ideal partners in a composite material.

Do not use other reinforcement materials in your concrete it is asking for problems...

Concrete engineering is a very simple sience with a couple of quite basic rules and very forseeable results if you stay within the rules.

This is why millions of constructions all over the world trust in reenforced concrete in aplications where live depends on it.

The new thing in a concrete submarine is applying the proven engineering of tunnels, oil rigs and dams, to submarines - basicly adding a motor, rudder, and tanks, to the structure to convert it into a submarine.

Do not leave the proven field of normal concrete - this is a dangerous way that can bring up catastrophic unexpected failure.

Kindest Regards,
W.Ellmer

[marshmat]

Spoken like a true civil engineer.... they sure love their concrete.... you wouldn't happen to be one, by some chance?
Some of the researchers here are investigating the use of carbon reinforcements in/around concrete columns... frankly I don't get the point; concrete is popular mainly because it's dirt cheap, and carbon tends to be insanely expensive... but I guess they can justify it somehow. Also some work there on fibreglass-mesh reinforcements that might be promising.
It looks like you've stayed with tradition and overbuilt everything- a sound design philosophy for this project, IMHO. Very cool, indeed.

[wellmer]

Hello Matt,
I am not a civil engineer, but i have discussed this a lot with civil engineers, and the concrete handbook for civil engineers is my bible in this as i really want to build with a material that is investigated and forseeable when my life depends on it.
Fiber of any kind in concrete is big problem: The key factor for strong concrete is compacting the concrete during casting. So spaces smaller than 3 cm are TABU en concrete construction this is why you see workers with vibrators compacting concrete between the steelbars on every construction site - how would you fill and compact concrete between the micrometer spaces of a glass or carbon fibers - i have never seen such an application in any construction site - probably there are good reasons NOT to do it.
Anyhow there are fiber concrete aplications for roofs like ETERNIT. But those are aplication where the concrete is not supposed to take forces of any kind.

Wilfried

[wellmer]

Visit www.psubs.org - the web/blog site for self-built submersibles. They have books, articles, plans for sale, photos, reader's projects etc. Everything.

Hi I have published some photos of my submarine www.tolimared.com/submarine in psubs.org moki files - There is also a discussion about concrete submarine yachts on this forum from a year ago...

Regards,
Wilfried

Concrete submarine yacht - hull without ballast and tower
http://imulead.com/tolimared/submarine/ac.jpg


Concrete submarine yacht - hull with ballast machinery and tower
http://imulead.com/tolimared/submarine/ad.jpg

Concrete submarine yacht - inside nice and dry no filtering no condensation
http://imulead.com/tolimared/submarine/da.jpg

[wellmer]

Interesting project, Wil. But it's going to be no easy task.
Have you compared costs against an all steel one?
Cheers,

Hello Guillermo,

I already built the concrete submarine yacht, dived and tested it for a decade, - it was quite easy. See [www.tolimared.com/submarine] for photos. There are also photos published in boatdesign.net - gallery.

Most complicated part is the concrete forming for a blimp shape, but i came up with a tecnique that allowed casting with a moving forming process similar to the one used in Torontos TV tower.

What concerns cost against steel only the sandblasting of a steel hull would be more expensive than the complete concrete submarine hull.

Regards,
W.Ellmer

[RatliffFranklin]

Hello Guillermo,

I already built the concrete submarine yacht, dived and tested it for a decade, - it was quite easy. See [www.tolimared.com/submarine] for photos. There are also photos published in boatdesign.net - gallery.

Most complicated part is the concrete forming for a blimp shape, but i came up with a tecnique that allowed casting with a moving forming process similar to the one used in Torontos TV tower.

What concerns cost against steel only the sandblasting of a steel hull would be more expensive than the complete concrete submarine hull.

Regards,
W.Ellmer

Although perhaps at some sacrifice to internal volume, could not the construction process be simplified by going to a cylindrical shape?

[wellmer]

Hello Franklin,

Of course you could also make a cylinder shape, maybe forming is a little easier - not much if you have a proper technique.

Anyhow the fine thing of a blimp shape is that you get a deep belly where you can store your sand ballast on a very deep point this gives your submarine a high stability in static dives. So it will not stand up like a bottle if you move from front seat to engine room during dive.

You also get 2m standing height - this is something important for comfort in your submarine on longer turns.

A cylinder of 2,4m diameter with end cups would be a hull very hard to move around.

The blimp shape gives you performance and range like a normal motor yacht.

Kindest Regards
Wilfried

[longliner45]

welmer I agree with you there,I believe Thomas Edison added bamboo to concrete to beef it up ,,first,also have you ever tried to sqeeze a raw egg,to burst it ? please keep us posted ,,very interesting project,think of all the salvage in shallow water!good luck,,,, longliner

[Poida]

So cool, you wouldn't have to guess if there were any fish there.
When you see them you just open a window and stick your fishing rod out.

[joe_cope]

What kind of concrete did you use? If I'm not mistaken ordinary cement is slightly porous and would allow water to seep in (and air to seep out) so you'd want to use a waterproof cement, right? Also, regular cement shrinks when it cures, right? so did you have any issues with shrinkage or cracking in the hull during the curing process?

have you ever tried to sqeeze a raw egg,to burst it ?
I've done that. I've crushed a raw egg by squeezing it along it's short axis, but not the long axis. Still took a hard squeeze though. :P

What about using some kind of fiber-reinforced plastic to increase flexability, reduce the chance of cracks, and to reduce weight? I'm remembering some kid's toys back in my hometown that were made out of recycled milk jugs. You could use some kind of plastic and glass or carbon fiber and build it up in layers (paint it on layer by layer)...

[wellmer]

The idea that concrete is a kind of sponge where water and air passes trough is not realistic - concrete made correctly does not allow pass of water at all. You see many structures without any coating that resist water under pressure. without any additional measures. (tunnels, dams, bridge fundamentations) - anyhow if you are concerned about this have a coating on your submarine - i recommend a tarmac based one as i had on my testproject [www.tolimared.com/submarine] i also was rather neurotic about what would happen when the coating would be compromised - until i noticed that the coating had been compromised in an area of 10x10 cm and i had not noticed it - no wet spot inside no filtering under pressure - just nothing. Today after having seen this in practice i would say coating is fine for estetical reasons - not necessary for tecnical ones. - If you have a imagine of a concrete submarine hull as a wet, filtering place just look at the poto in the photogallery - the hull was not only without any filtering it also was without condensation - the bilge stayed nice and dry under hot sun, and under ice cover - thing i had not expected in first place.

[wellmer]

What kind of concrete did you use? If I'm not mistaken ordinary cement is slightly porous and would allow water to seep in (and air to seep out) so you'd want to use a waterproof cement, right? Also, regular cement shrinks when it cures, right? so did you have any issues with shrinkage or cracking in the hull during the curing process?


I've done that. I've crushed a raw egg by squeezing it along it's short axis, but not the long axis. Still took a hard squeeze though. :P

What about using some kind of fiber-reinforced plastic to increase flexability, reduce the chance of cracks, and to reduce weight? I'm remembering some kid's toys back in my hometown that were made out of recycled milk jugs. You could use some kind of plastic and glass or carbon fiber and build it up in layers (paint it on layer by layer)...

from wellmer

The point is any intent of making concrete "better" is dangerous as you go away from what is proven state of art of concrete construction.

There is also no need to make it "better" as normal concrete has all properties required for a submarine hull.

I do not recommend any additives on contrary this is a way to make things more complicated to handle and increase the probability of failure. Concrete bible says that you should only use that kind of things if you have a concrete lab available - if you have no lab - stay at normal cement - in normal conditions - it is the only way to get a good result with predictable strenght.

The egg shell is a good experiment - especially if you compare it with a beer can - if you bring both to depth you will find that egg is better for diving. This is because it maintains form until it breaks.

Adding flexibility does no good as concrete has a reasonable flexibility anyhow
and changing form under pressure (flexible) is a problem - not a advantage.

In a submarine you want a solid pressure resistant wall no layers at all - layers mean changes in force flow that are impossible to calculate and predict.

Cracks are part of concrete construcction as rust is part of steel construction. Other than in glass a crack in concrete does not weaken the ability of the material to take forces - basicly for compression forces it does not matter and tension forces are not taken by the concrete - they are taken by the steelbars.

wellmer
[www.tolimared.com/submarine]

[joe_cope]

Cracks are part of concrete construcction as rust is part of steel construction. Other than in glass a crack in concrete does not weaken the ability of the material to take forces - basicly for compression forces it does not matter and tension forces are not taken by the concrete - they are taken by the steelbars.

How do the cracks in the concrete affect the watertight integrity of the hull under pressure?

And what about shrinkage? I know that there is "non-shrink" grout for things like swimming pools. Would shrinkage while curing be a problem for larger subs or thicker hulls?

[wellmer]

Hello Joe,

The kind of cracks you get in concrete by shrinking under normal conditions do not go trough the structure and are very small. The problem engineers worry most about is that water can reach the steelbars and produce rusting and therefore weakening on long term - therefore there is a normative that says that you should maintain a concrete cover of at least 2cm over the bars to enable them to take the full force and to avoid filtering water down to the bars. So stay within that normative and back it up with an aditional bitumen cover of 1mm - you will be at the save side and have no problems with your concrete submarine hull - no filtering.

In worst case you have a filtering it tends to stop under pressure as spaces reduce under compression. Trieste had a 11.000 m dive with a filtering on surface

Again i know the idea of cracks is a little scaring especialy if you have submarine films in mind where glass and acylic cracks just before failure.

You will get piece of mind if you talk with a construction engineer about this - and his state of mind when cracks appear in the colums of a building that take thousands of tons of force ...

They do not worry about cracks that appear during curing of concrete the only kind of cracks they worry about is the kind that appears years after the construction and bring up colors of rusting bars and other sign of problems and filtering in concrete due to bad execution of basic concrete rules.

Shrinkage is no big issue in normal construcction. If you have walls of dozends of meters as in dam construction you get a problem because concrete produces heat while curing and must not reach more than 30degrees Celsius during cure process.

Again, stick to the proven you will get a good result - no reason to see ghosts of cracks, shrinking, filtering everywhere - If you ever have seen a concrete hull in parctice you will trust it as you trust bridges, tunnels, and colums in everyday life.

You ever thought about the fact that the building above you is hold in its place only by a concrete column full of cracks due to curing process - a scaring idea - similar scaring as the idea of a watercolumn of hundreds of meters above your submarine.

This is the same thing as first glassfiber hulls came up - people said: oh you would cross the ocean in a fragile boat of glass? or even worse in one made out of coal? - if you ever have seen and touched a real hull and get a idea of its real strengh - all those ghosts simply disappear.


Kindest Regards,
W.Ellmer

[kach22i]

While everyone seems to of focused on the material, I'd like to say something about the form.

1. It should have a flat top or deck so that one could choose the fresh air and sunshine.

2. It should be shinny and pretty with a good deal of thought gone into it's Industrial design.

Other wild options may include special themes or novelty.

http://hometown.aol.com/sagephoenix/images/yellow%20submarine.jpg
http://www.buckeyestateblog.com/node/1802

http://www.otwdesigns.com/Type7/DeckConningDetail.gif
http://www.otwdesigns.com/Type7/type7.htm

I don't mean to mock your industrious ideas, just looking at it from a different vantage point - it's gotta sell.

Maybe add a sail?

[wellmer]

Hello kach22i,
I apreciate your contribution - finally - a yacht must sell. I also thought a lot about a kind of deck - in first place to have a place for a fine anchor solution with winch and chain storage. - in second place to have cells for blowing them out with air in emergency. This is not so important for a small sub like my submarine yacht [www.tolimared.com/submarine]
http://imulead.com/tolimared/submarine/de.jpg

But very important for a bigger ship where an anchor winch is a must and drop weights are not a viable security solution. - Also deckspace would be big enough to give it a real use.

Kindest Regards,
W.Ellmer

[kach22i]

Also deckspace would be big enough to give it a real use.r
Now you are talking, room for a bikini boat party............why else own a yacht?:D

EDIT: Found This..................................big deck.

http://www.sub-find.com/deepstar.htm
http://www.sub-find.com/images/DS_sub-side.jpg
http://www.sub-find.com/images/DS_sub_side2.jpg
http://www.sub-find.com/images/DS_sub-Interior.jpg

http://www.submarine.co.mp/
http://www.submarine.co.mp/wallpaper/submarine_640.jpg
http://www.submarine.co.mp/tour/passenger_onboard1_lg.jpg
http://www.submarine.co.mp/header.gif

http://www.balicruises.com/sea/submarine/index.html
http://www.balicruises.com/sea/submarine/images/bali-submarine.jpg

I see nothing wrong with other themes, just posting samples.

http://www.ossapowerlite.com/customers/exomos/nautilus/nautilus.htm
http://www.ossapowerlite.com/customers/exomos/nautilus/nautilus.jpg
Nautilus is Exomos' version of the submarine in Jules Verne's 20,000 leagues and is intended to be used by tourist resorts to give visitors a unique view of the local marine environment. It seats seven, with the option to add 2 jump seats. The anticipated final weight in water is eight tons, 15.5 meters long, 2.5 meters in diameter. Nautilus is Powered by our OSSA Powerlite a 500vdc version of our OSSA Powerlite 35hp motor. The motor turns a 26" x 13" pitch, 5-bladed propeller. Power is provided by a state-of-the-art 512v lithium-ion battery pack which is recharged at dockside.

http://www.vulcaniasubmarine.com/TESTING%20THE%20NAUTILUS%20MINISUB.htm

http://gohawaii.about.com/library/gallery/blgallery428.htm
http://z.about.com/d/gohawaii/1/0/S/H/TMC428.jpg

[wellmer]

Hello kach22i,

The submarines you show in the pictures are all variations of one segment the tourist submarine.

Those boats are built to load a big quantity of tourists in on a protected pier and bring them out maybe half a mile to a protected divesite in a 30 minute dive.

Once in nobody is allowed to leave seat until dive ends.

They look like a submarine tourist bus - because they are constructed to be one.

They are not yachts in the sense of yachting going for a longer trip, live aboard, etc...

Acrylic viewports of that size take a maximum of 10000 dive cycles and then have to be replaced at prohibitive cost.

A tourist sub similar as an airplane has to be certifiacted for passenger transport. So this is a segment completly apart from yachting.

In a private yacht you can do and use what you consider - in public transport not.

You will never get a certification for a concrete hull as there are no normative rules for certification.

So the sector of tourist sub will be the LAST segment where you will see a concrete submarine. - This is why my design was NOT meant for it.

http://imulead.com/tolimared/submarine/da.jpg

http://imulead.com/tolimared/submarine/db.jpg

http://imulead.com/tolimared/submarine/dc.jpg

http://imulead.com/tolimared/submarine/dd.jpg

http://imulead.com/tolimared/submarine/de.jpg

http://imulead.com/tolimared/submarine/df.jpg

http://imulead.com/tolimared/submarine/dg.jpg

The design was made to perform as low cost low maintainance yacht being parked on a mooring in a field of sailing and motor yachts, and perform for weekend trips in a yachtintg environment.

I found out that my submarine yacht had even lower maintainance cost than the sourrounding sailing and motor yachts so given the restrictions to tourist submarines i believe that this is the segment where concrete submarines might have a future.

Kindest Regards,
W.Ellmer

[joe_cope]

The more I think about your little submarine (I think if it as a "cementosphere", even though it's an ellipsoid. It makes me think of the orginal Bathisphere) the more I like it. :D

What would be really cool though, would be if it could be transparent. The walls of your sub are 18cm thick, right? Would it be possible to build an equivelant hull out of something transparent, like a plastic, glass, or pyrex? I imagine that 18cm of pyrex would hold a lot of pressure, particularly if there was some kind of reinforcement running through it (I'm picturing those windows that you see in American high schools with the 2cm grid of fibers inbedded in them so they don't get broken).

Even a small sub like my project is a lot more heavier than a similiar sized surface boat - therefore slipping cost is high - so avoiding go to slip during decades is a mayor cost benefit.

What is "slipping cost"?

[wellmer]

Hello Joe,
concrete as hull material and a series of spheres in a 2 hull concept might be a way how a independent submarine (no mothership) could reach a depth that comes close to average ocean depth. I discussed this matter with Carsten in Germany (the Guy who builds the merlin sub) a couple of months agro.

Now what concerns trieste, the first intent for deep diving was a steel sphere on a steel cable (bebe) which is dangerous as the steel sphere is heavier than water and sinks if cable breaks. So Piccard added a big gasoline tank on top to the concept that gives the sphere additional float to get rid of the cable.

Triestes steel sphere passenger compartment had 2m diameter and was made in Germany by Krupp in the same installations where the monstercanons bertha and dora where built - it is (still) the biggest installation for the biggest single pieces of steel in the world. They formed it by hammering a 2m red hot steel block and then machining it down to final half sphere shape - glueing 2 half spheres and a central ring together. - imagine the cost -

You can form a 2m concrete shpere in your garage with any wallthickness - no Krupp with mega installations needed. That is a BIG difference in cost. You also can form a 5m sphere - not even Krupp can do this in steel.

It is clear that massive steel has a higher pressure resistance than concrete.
So a concrete sphere will not go down to 11.000m like trieste did but you may go well below thousand meters and can possibly reach ocean floor outside submarine cañons.

I am not very optimistic of forming something similar out of acrylic as this is a difficult material with 10% shrinking - heat processing after each machining step etc... have never seen piezes of glass except a few millimeter thick nor in pyrex.... Honestly the only construction material i know where massive pieces of 20 cm thickness and far more are formed sucessfully evry single day all over the world is concrete.

The idea of glass with wire grid for submarines is a thing i would not recommend...
To get a good idea what submarine viewports should be made of and what is state of the arte read (Jerry D. Stachiw) and (http://www.psubs.org/).

What i want to say with "slipping cost" is: Depending on the material of which your yacht is made you have to pay whenever it must be taken out of water for painting, repair, check. In a wooden yacht this is a big MAYOR cost as you take it out at least once a year paying for crane, for using shipyard installation ect...

A concrete submarine hull is supposed to stay unaltered in water similar like a tunnel or a bridge fundamentation - for decades - centuries... this is a big cost benefit compared to other materials...

Just put a bouy and let it hang there as i did summer, winter, year after year - scrap the algea is all you need do - see:

http://imulead.com/tolimared/submarine/ad.jpg



Kindest Regards,
W Ellmer

[kach22i]

So the sector of tourist sub will be the LAST segment where you will see a concrete submarine. - This is why my design was NOT meant for it.
You are right of course; I was just admiring the decks of the underwater buses and ability to look out.

I see that your design has it's own beauty and it also has side view ports which will help it sell.

I'm not sure how much drag a deck will have, nor how having a flat surface so near a potentially turbulent surface will affect handling and sea keeping.

Any observations I may have are distant ones and somewhat removed from engineering.

[kach22i]

To get a good idea what submarine viewports should be made of and what is state of the arte read (Jerry D. Stachiw) and (http://www.psubs.org/index.html.

That site has a nice gallery page:
http://www.psubs.org/pic/pic.html

[joe_cope]

I am not very optimistic of forming something similar out of acrylic as this is a difficult material with 10% shrinking - heat processing after each machining step etc... have never seen piezes of glass except a few millimeter thick nor in pyrex.... Honestly the only construction material i know where massive pieces of 20 cm thickness and far more are formed sucessfully evry single day all over the world is concrete.

The idea of glass with wire grid for submarines is a thing i would not recommend...

What a shame... floating around the keys or Hawaiian islands in a clear bubble really sounded nice. :)

[wellmer]

Hello kach22i,

A deck is a fine thing on a big submarine so you can sit on deck have table and chairs on deck in harbour - maybe a party.

On my 9m submarine a deck would be a surface of 2x1m before and aft of the tower - just enough to stand on - nothing for a real use - and a additional surface you have to scrap birdshit off when boat is hanging on its bouy.

http://imulead.com/tolimared/submarine/ad.jpg

You can´t use any deck in any submarine in open ocean as waves will wash over it - this is why submarines have a tower. If you want a deck usable in open water you need a lot of freebord and this is a lot of additional drag. See (ussubmarines.com) - in fact you need to extend the tower to the whole sub.
Anyhow if you plan a lot of activity on deck and are willing to accept drag it can be a solution.

What speaks against the concept of enourmous curved acrylc surfaces like in a tourist sub is cost. Viewports only can take 10.000 dive cycles then must be replaced. It is ok if you have a tourist sub you earn money with each dive. If you dive 10 times a day you have to rebuild whole ship after 3 years. This may work for a tourist bus application - a 3 years livetime is prohibitive for a yacht.

This must be why ussubmarines 65m megayacht submarine has not yet been realized - tremendously expensive and rebuild all acrylic surfaces - after 3 years...this is too much.

In my concept (www.tolimared.com/submarine) you have 4 viewports of 50 cm diameter. Those are disc shapes which take more loadcycles than domes.
You also can change them at reasonable cost - even without taking the submarine out of water.

This gives you enough light inside see:
http://imulead.com/tolimared/submarine/da.jpg

You also have a fine view of underwaterworld if you bring your face close all your angle of view is covered by the viewport.

http://imulead.com/tolimared/submarine/ah.jpg

So limiting the number of viewports and stay with flat disc shape instead of dome is a key factor for a reasonable life span and a reasonable cost in a submarine yacht.

Kindest Regards,
W Ellmer

[wellmer]

What a shame... floating around the keys or Hawaiian islands in a clear bubble really sounded nice. :)

You can get half spheres of acrylic up to 6 foot diameter - this is bringing acrylic domes to the limit - Deep Rover from phil nyutten - is such a submarine concept floating around in a bubble - unfortunatly needs a big mothership - and replace your bubble after 10.000 dive cycles ...

Kindest Regards
W Ellmer

[Poida]

G'day Wellmer

Being a marketing type of indervidual, I was wondering as you seem to want to market this design.

What is your "target" clientelle. ie What type of person do you invisage will purchase a submarine and what consumer benefits are there in owning one.

In short who would want one and what would they do with it?

Poida

[wellmer]

Hello Poida


1) Submarine Weekend Yachting

smaller submarine yachts like mine at (http://tolimared.com/submarine) for weekend yachting
- low building cost
- low maintainance cost
- easy parking on a buoy - no harbour necessary - can be closed completly no vigilance necessary.

2) Submarine Live Aboard

bigger yachts - living in a comfortable ambient.
- no wave action
- no seasickness
- no need of hurricane save harbour
- fine climate as water filters temperature extremes

3) Salvatage ROV deployment

ROV Deployment from Surface ship is risky due to wave action - loss due to waiting for better weather.
Moving Ship cuts cable. In a Sub you have a calm environment to send out ROV under any conditions.

4) Habitats
Spheres of dozends of meters of diameter are possible in concrete.

5) Tourist submarines will be hard to classifie as there are no concrete classification rules for concrete tourist submarines.

Kindest Regards,
W.Ellmer

[safffff]

Wilfried what are your future planes for your next project? I really like the concrete concept, so what are your ideas for your long range cruiser? I like the idea of traveling the world with something like this. I like the idea of sitting under the weather outside of harbors so you can anchor anywhere and sleep in peace. Have you thought of a way to travel on diesel engines in rough water without the pressure differences from the snorkle tube. And finally can you go into more detail how you built your hull or tell me websites to go to learn about the technique? Thank you for any response and good luck with your future projects. Steve

[wellmer]

Hello Steve,

Thanks a lot for your kind words about the concrete submarine yacht project.
What is next to get this project afloat is a long range submarine cruiser with concrete hull. I agree with you on that. To get the concept moved you need something like a marketing campain. What would be a better marketing than to cruise with a submarine yacht from marina to marina and show people how that concept works. I had crowds of people on rainy days on a alpine lake - anybody wantet to get into the submarine - imagine the crowd on a sunny day in miami beach...florida keys...you would get a equivalent of millions in free publicity.

Once the yacht community understands that submarine yachting is an option - not only for billionairs - but can be very affordable - even more economic in terms of building and maintainance cost than a motor or sailing yacht - people will focus on the aproach of submarine live aboard with those mayor advantages like no wave action and weather safety.
Sitting under weather outside the harbour sparing marina fees, having a nice quiet dinner watching fish - no conern about pirates - no watch necessary - go asleep - let a snorkel light blink - this is fine yachting it will succeed if you offer a real option to get there.

Today yachting community is driven by hurrican season, need of safe harbours and marina costs. The kind of autonomy that a submarine yacht can offer would be highly apreciated. Beside that - if you have a small submarine yacht and you steal the show, from the Megayachts in any harbour. So there is a reason of money a reason of comfort and a reason of ego to do it.

The question of the pressure surges during snorkeling comes from WW2 submarines. Those submarines where built that way that the diesel engine sucked the air from the inside of the boat and the negative pressure in the hull caused air to enter trough the Snorkel. This worked fine until the boat got a little too deep and the automatic snorkel valve closed to avoid water comming in trough the Snorkel.
The diesel keeps sucking and creates a momentaneous underpressure in the sub that causes ears and eyes of the crew almost pop out...you can avoid this in having a long snorkel mast that stays way above the waves - thing the WW2 subs could not do because the snorkel mast causes a big radar echo that is very visible - so they had to keep their snorkel end very close to the waves - just a few centimeters above the surface. - so this pressure surges are a question of desperate war tactics to avoid detection more than a tecnical problem of snorkeling. in a submarine yacht you keep your snorkel high above the waves like a flagmast an put a diveflag on it so anybody can see you. You even should opt for a 2 snorkel solution as i had in my test project ( http://tolimared.com/submarine ) this gives you a natural air flow trough the submarine on anchorplace that keeps ambient fine and dry.

Forming of a concrete submarine hull is basicly a forming process with a moving ring shape mold similar to the ones used in toronto TV tower tunnel building etc...forming is the most tricky part - it took me a while to figure out a good method. I will share those details in a project. Please contact me privatly...

Kindest Regards,

Wilfried

[joe_cope]

in a submarine yacht you keep your snorkel high above the waves like a flagmast an put a diveflag on it so anybody can see you. You even should opt for a 2 snorkel solution as i had in my test project

How about a floating snorkel attached to the sub via a flexible and streachable hose (I'm picturing something like the coiled hoses used by auto painting bussinesses, only larger).

Then you wouldn't have to worry about going too deep, or having the snorkel stick up like a flag on a kid's go-cart

[wellmer]

Hello Joe,
Floating snorkel is fine concept i tested it on my submarine yacht. I used a PVC tube of 10cm diameter. You can make it quite long 30m if you need and just pull it behind your sub. As concrete submarines are little compressible you can ballance them easyly at any depth which means you can hang your sub at any depth in a stable floating position using only the displacement of the tube to stabilize the submarine. This works fine and would be a good thing at ocean passages you keep the boat at 20m below the big waves and still in snorkel mode.

Kindest Regards,
W.Ellmer

[safffff]

Thank you for your last reply. Have you thought of building another sub to lower to great depths to test out when the hull fails. Maybe without windows. Would really like to see more interior pictures and of construction. Steve

[kach22i]

UPDATE: 02/21/07

How to put surface seats/deck on round submarine.
http://flickr.com/photos/girl-ferrets/archives/date-posted/2006/09/06/

[jim lee]

Do you have any more recent photos of the finished machine? Powerplant installation controls etc.?

-jim lee

[kach22i]

A similar submarine, but on a smaller scale (model):
http://www.modelluboot.de/KITS/Kugelfisch_Ordner/KugelfischE.html

http://www.modelluboot.de/KITS/Kugelfisch_Ordner/Kugelfisch_ohne.jpg

[wellmer]

new pictures of my concrete submarine yacht and current projects now available at:
www.concretesubmarine.com

I would like to create a network of people interested in submarine yachts to get the concept on track... let me hear your thoughts...
http://imulead.com/tolimared/concretesubmarine/image/aaa-submarine.jpg

Cheers Wil

[MarkC]

wellmer,

Have I read this correctly on your web site?

Ferrocement is a yacht construction technique where you form a a boat with dozends of layers of chicken wire and then press cement between the mashes. This produces crackling and rusting meshwire problems.

You can't really be serious with this comment? It is incorrect.

I think you can promote your technique without slagging-off other building techniques.

I mean, you are trying to build trust. In my opinion these comments only make your project look insecure.


A good text to read:

FERROCEMENT AND LAMINATED CEMENTITIOUS COMPOSITES

by Antoine E. Naaman, Ph.D.
Fellow ACI; Fellow ASCE; Fellow PCI; Fellow IFS
Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Hardcover; 372 pages; 160 figures and illustrations; 43 pages containing 120 photographs; design aids; bibliographic references; 7.25x9.5 in.
ISBN: 0-9674939-0-0; LCCN: 99-96382
Copyright 2000

See also the University of Michigan and their concrete canoes:
http://www.engin.umich.edu/team/canoe/construction.html

Another reference text from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/V9468E/v9468e00.HTM
Fishing Boat Construction: 3. Building a Ferrocement Fishing Boat

Here, in Boatdesign.net design articles - there is the US Navy Ferro Cement Boat Building Manual in PDF.

There is also the:
American Bureau of Shipping:
(Document ref. Sections 5.7 and 10)

[wellmer]

Hello Marc,
You are completely right. My apologies to ferro cement constructions. I have not done sufficient in ferro cement to make any well founded comment about this method. What i wanted to make clear is that there is a BIG difference between concrete engineering as seen in tunnel and oilrig construction and ferro cement - the difference is similar to a glass bottle versus glass fiber composite.
The comment about crackling is a general comment - what kind of problems you have to deal with - i am not saying you can not handle this and the method is not valid. In concrete construction the protection of the steel is guaranteed by a simpel rule - 2cm concrete cover are required over any steel bar. It is obvious that this can not be performed in walls below 3 cm which would be to heavy for a yacht application. Anyhow obviously there are ways to achive this protection in ferro cement - obviously not any ferro cement yacht crackles - not any steel yacht rusts - not any glass fiber hull is plagued by osmosis - just a poorly built one - Any building method and material has its pros and cons is valid in its field of application, brings up problems if not applied well. Cheers Wilfried

[MarkC]

there is a BIG difference between concrete engineering as seen in tunnel and oilrig construction and ferro cement - the difference is similar to a glass bottle versus glass fiber composite.

That is a better comment!

Good luck with your project - it looks like you have done much work to get where you are.

[Hotel Lima]

How would you operate one if these in an ocean or sea without being sunk by your own navy?

[Mesuge]

Hi Wil, this is absolutely amazing thread as I've been lurking around the psub.org pages and linked projects incl. yours for couple of recent yrs..

Now first round of many questions and suggestions :cool:

1/ Snorkeling - how reliable is this in rough/high seas?
As mentioned in the other thread overhere you can't use it in bad weather that much..

2/ Thinking about "straight veggie diesel" or flexfuel, these kits are usually not a problem for diesel tractor engines now etc.

3/ Bow thruster? Probably not necessary for the 20t but might be necessary for those >60tonners to easily navigate in tight areas. When installed bellow - how much is this going to negatively affect the overall efficiency of the uber hydrodynamic blimp design? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_thruster

4/ What about Kort nozzel for higher engine/overall vessel speed/efficiency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kort_nozzle

5/ Small living space?! No, actually giant living space!
First step, well you can install some hooks and retractable struts between the two snorkles and put up a cheap summer roof/bimini like on those big cats/yachts for nice siesta shade. Won't take much space as rolled fabric when submerged and hidden in your storage area.

Secondly, and more importantely, when on the surface in calm waters you can install small struts on the starboard with small inflatable hull parallel to the main hull, think about those polyneasian diy cats/trimarans. Now, you just place a net/mesh between the struts and the sub, so you have suddenly many dozens additional m2 of space for leisure activities with shade from the bimini. One can reasonable assume it would take only 20mins to prepare such a leisure setup after resurfacing..

Only then you can finally call it "submarine yacht camping"!!!
If not clear I'll send a diagram..


6/ Any ideas about ultra-low friction-smooth top layer coat/color on the C-sub for higher water gliding efficiency? This for sure must exist, perhaps developed for a bit different products on the market but might be utlized by diy c-subbers..

7/ Well, I know it's not very realistic at this point, but I'm most fascinated by the prospect of average mortals perhaps having access to those 25m >100tonner scaled designs of c-subs, which would make for truely great living aboard ocean capable ship. I'm wondering, besides the concrete costs, what would be the price of valves/hydraulics/electronics in this weight range - is it still going to be managable for diyers within "light" diving performance -100/200m max?

8/ Concrete technology - I've to read up more on this whole area but just an idea.
There are some scientists who discovered that the Giza pyramids and their stone blocs were most likely at least partly made/casted from concrete. This 5k years old chemical formula is cheaper and less CO2 taxing on the environment than the modern industrial method. Not sure about the high presure resistance properties compatibility we need for c-subs though.

The whole video lecture of those scientists is here, incl. the process of manuf. this kind of cheap yet very hard concrete..

Overview:
http://www.livescience.com/history/070518_bts_barsoum_pyramids.html

Video lecture:
http://media.irt.drexel.edu/mediasite/viewer/?peid=cd83d501-eccb-497e-ad63-3d08a26de747

Homepage and manuf. video of "geopolymers":
http://www.materials.drexel.edu/Pyramids/

[dccd]

Wow, really good execution of a one-off design and concrete will always be a good choice for a displacement type of yacht, under or on waves. I like the idea of the Concrete houseboat simple robust with cast in foam blocks darn near unsinkable. I have seen some very sophisticated concrete shapes for the local drainage construction projects. Many have the Styrofoam inserts still in them to be removed before installed. These inserts create the opening and nice sealing detail grooves where pipes are joined.

I can envision a sub-yacht interior plug of Styrofoam placed in the mold which has bulkheads, cabinet voids and open floor channels for piping/elec to be covered with floor boards when done. The Styrofoam can either be sandblasted out or some use of acetone for the difficult shapes. The design possibilities are endless.

[Mesuge]

dccd> yes, Styrofoam in the mold seems to be a very neat idea for c-subs detailing. Carsten from the Euronaut sub has suggested exactly the same along the lines, "Go with the idea that the water tanks, hard and soft but also the gas and fuel storage tanks are just caves in the concrete and make the hole concept integral. regards Carsten"


-but these storage caves are almost entirely not serviceble after the end of construction, so someone should run a simulation about the safe dimensions for several decades of operation.

-there will be need for additional filters before valves as the outer layer of concrete will slightly desintegrate over time (small particles) etc.

-thanks to modern CAD/CNC this whole rather complex 3D setup could be nicely designed and then realized during construction phase

-but not sure about the inclusion of compressed air storage as well, how reliable and long lasting this could be? I doubt it has the potential to match the presurized bottles which are used in psubs nowadays..

[StianM]

I think alot of ritch people want there own submarines in the folowin years and it would be class and fancy stuff like Kevlar hulls, but folowin this I gues those less ritch would like one and there you have a nice market for concrete submarines. Annyone could pull togheter enough money to buy the concrete neaded for that submarine.

Just my though annyway;)

I gues your using baterys as propulsion.

I think I read a article some years ago about the swedish navy using Stirling engines in one submarine as a test project.

High preshure air from gasbotles where injected into the stirling engines combustion chamber together with fuel and the ehaust was pumped out into the water. Annyone else sen this?

Defently a great project, but I would not buy one. I like to keep my head abow water:p Almoust drowned as a kid.

[Hotel Lima]

Im still wondering how you keep from getting ASW aircraft chasing you all around.

[marshmat]

8/ Concrete technology - I've to read up more on this whole area but just an idea.
There are some scientists who discovered that the Giza pyramids and their stone blocs were most likely at least partly made/casted from concrete. This 5k years old chemical formula is cheaper and less CO2 taxing on the environment than the modern industrial method. Not sure about the high presure resistance properties compatibility we need for c-subs though.
There are low-CO2 and CO2-sequestration concrete manufacturing methods available today, that are as versatile as regular methods. The capital costs of the manufacturing plant are higher, though, and concrete companies on the whole are so penny-pinching that there's just no demand for new plants to be set up with better technology.
I think I read a article some years ago about the swedish navy using Stirling engines in one submarine as a test project. High preshure air from gasbotles where injected into the stirling engines combustion chamber together with fuel and the ehaust was pumped out into the water. Annyone else sen this?
Yep, this has been explored a number of times for leisure submarines as well. The Stirling cycle is ideal because it is inherently a lot more efficient than the Otto or Diesel cycles, thus you can actually get a bit of underwater range on the combustion engine if you have enough air tanks; the downside is the equipment is much larger and heavier for comparable power output. Such a sub really still needs some degree of electric drive to be practical, however, as underwater endurance with the Stirling cycle units is limited by the amount of compressed air you can carry.
Im still wondering how you keep from getting ASW aircraft chasing you all around. Paint it yellow and blast your Beatles collection on the external speakers. This should make it pretty clear to the ASW sonar operator that you ain't hostile :D

[Poida]

I saw a documentary last weekend about someone building a sub.

It had a large perspex dome front and the idea was for tourists. Lots of visibility which I think is needed for that type of work.

Also a feature that I haven't seen mentioned on this concrete sub, is a weight release system to surface the sub should there be a loss of power.

Subs rise by pumping out the water used for ballast, a loss of power means your pumps won't work. Pump failure = the same thing.

This sub had weights attached by pins that were extracted manually, so in case of power failure you could extract the pins, drop the weight and the sub would then be positively buoyant and float to the surface.

Does this sub have such a feature?

Poida

[wellmer]

Hi Poida,

The submarine yacht at (www.concretesubmarine.com) was a prove of concept study. So what i tried to do with it is to test it all. I had a electric pump and a hand pump, this submarine although 20 tons of displacement tended to return to surface with the displacement of water of only 1 liter so you can manage that with a hand pump. But what happens if big quantities of water come in in case of emergency or you need a extra lift because of entanglement? So i added drop weights - but this is a "stay in water" concept - mechanical mechanisms you can trust with your life after exposure of years to marine environment are hard to perform. So i added a experimental saddle tank at the top of the hull and found that a very simple low tec security lift - i would recommend it - it is also standard in military subs - for good reasons i assume - although you have to be careful with ice build up on the compressed air nozzles ...

Cheers Wilfried

[wellmer]

Im still wondering how you keep from getting ASW aircraft chasing you all around.

Hi lima,

Well i assume in the same way as you avoid frogman hunting killer dolphins when you are scuba diving on a coral reef - or be shot at the airport when you could not shave and got bearded like a bin...

Beatles and yellow paint is fine... also do not sneak in diving into military installations - just pop up and approach in daylight - identify properly - it is very common that people will seek identification before shooting even military minded ones...like at the airport passport control if you don´t run nor hide a identity check will be all that navy wants.

cheers Wilfried

[Poida]

Heay Wil, don't use your sub in the British Underground 'cos the cops shoot first.

PS For non English speaking countries an underground is a subway

Thanks for the explanation on your weight dropping system, I tend to forget that due to the concrete construction there is little if any reduction in sub size due to compression. Probably a litre of water on the surface for bouyancy is the same for 50 metres of depth.

With only the requirement for a small ballast weight a dive cylinder fitted to the ballast tank would easily evacuate it. This I think would work to depths less than 300 metres.

Have you thought any about my comment an earlier post about fitting it with robotic arms for doing undersea work for oil rigs etc?

Poida

[Mesuge]

The first "blimp shaped" sub USS Albacore - read up on many design/construction details especially about gradually perfecting the aft section or the sonar housing etc.. As indicated earlier blimps are indeed very unstable on the surface in rough waters, so one should account for that in overal planning and during execution of uw missions.

http://www.ussalbacore.org/html/albacore_story.html

[Mesuge]

Going back to the topic of hull integrated ballast(sand),water/tank/storage/overhead compartments and perhaps even compressed air tanks. As suggested earlier concrete building methods for drainage systems using Styrofoam plugs might be the way to go in modeling these structures..

The (ballast) tanks should be divided by cca 1,5m lenght intervals to secure balance of the ship. In my view the lateral cells-tanks for fuel/air should be only cell structure for housing the aluminum/steel tanks without the permanent concrete top cover for better service accessability.

The sand for ballast tanks could be pumped inside by a hose from the outside going through the main entrance hatch, so wet dock operation is possible.

In any case some advanced drawing of this setup should be consulted with the concrete specialist to determine feasibility/cost of this hull integrated tank cell/Styrofoam plug building approach for the "slip form method" of pouring concrete ..

http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/5205/csub14mcompartmentsky5.jpg
http://imulead.com/tolimared/concretesubmarine/image/ao-front.gifhttp://imulead.com/tolimared/concretesubmarine/image/aq-diagonal.jpg

Pls. allow for my quickie raw concept visual..

[Mesuge]

http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/4017/csub14mbiminitricatyw5.jpg

Submarine yachting now means ample space for sunbathing, leisure activities on the trampoline
and under the spacious shade! Provided the sea is not rough or you are hidden in a quiet bay for the evening..

Well, as my completely novel concept how to dramatically enlarge the living space for psubs didn't stir much attention, so now you are provided with more visual clues as to what exactly I'm after.

The top (white lines) is removable wire structure for the shade/bimini. The black steel lock-in triangles are fixed part of the psub hull..

The lateral inflatable floats (could be only one long barrel) are attached to the psub hull from one or both sides (star/port) and
could be inflated by handpump or compresor hose from the ship. The overall idea, think about those very stable polynesian designs or inflatable kayaks and catamarans. This additional lateral platfrom should be easy to install from collapsible aluminium beam kit in a few minutes and relatively cheap. Optionally this could be made a little bit stronger structure (also foldable/stored at least partly inside the ship) and function not only as the frame support for the sunbathing trampoline/net platform but also as stabilizer floats for the whole psub.

Inflatable cat/kayak examples:
http://www.easysail.com/england/easyto.asp
http://www.sailboatstogo.com/catalog/product.php?category=INFLATABLE_RIG

!Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0ieHldPJWI
http://www.easysail.com/photos/17.jpghttp://www.sailboatstogo.com/images/kayakHD.jpg

--

The last concept is to add foldable 0.8-1.2kW Papillon solarcooker placed somewhere near the aft section, because the highly polished aluminum could suffer in salt water? It might be stored either inside the ship - perhaps new model of Papillon collapsible into smaller pieces would be necessary to develop or store it as it is now in some special pressurized container outside the main hull.

In similar fashion solar water heating panels could be stored in the same outside bunk or lifted via main entrance hatch by mini lift/crane system from the inside of the psub..

These solar contraptions can greatly reduce power consumption, increase comfort, hygien and prolong the time span of expeditions.
In terms of power output this cooker can boil 6l of water in few minutes, add some losses/delay for being out of focus
because of wave up/down movement => still much better than gas/electricity cooking in tiny kitchen inside the psub..

[wellmer]

Poida:
...Thanks for the explanation on your weight dropping system, I tend to forget that due to the concrete construction there is little if any reduction in sub size due to compression. Probably a liter of water on the surface for buoyancy is the same for 50 meters of depth.

Hello Poida,
Yes, the hull of that prototype (www.concretesubmarine.com) was very little compressible what has the benefit that the dive system can work with shifting very small quantities of water.
I was able to dive and regulate that 20ton submarine in any dive depth with 1 liter of ballast water - what frankly amazed me as this was not expected in first place.
I agree that a compressed air security lift is working best to a maximum of 300m below that drop weights are a better option due to their independence of lift capacity to pressure.
Cheers Wil

[wellmer]

submarine yacht robotic arms versus ROV

Poida
Have you thought any about my comment an earlier post about fitting it with robotic arms for doing undersea work for oil rigs etc?

The concept of robot arms brings up the T-Rex problem if you have a big body and very small arms you can hardly use them. If you put big arms you blow hydrodynamics and cruise efficiency. Arms also would go in contrary to the "leave boat in water" concept which is key for economics. So i would prefer to deploy a ROV from a hydrodynamic garage on a short cable. This gives you a better way to reach remote spaces for example in a shipwreck without putting the submarine at risk, the ROV with its arms can get maintainance without lifting your submarine out of water, a independent ROV is a security factor as he can give you a picture and even cut you free in case of entanglement.
Cheers Wil

[wellmer]

mesuge
...earlier blimps are indeed very unstable on the surface in rough waters

Hello Mesuge
Stability in a submarine yacht depends on the moments of ballast and buoyancy and their force arm length. This is why long thin submarines stand up like a half filled bottle when the heck or front compartment gets flooded - this is a catastrophic event no matter if the boat can make it to surface or not - some of the nasties sub accidents have been associated to this.
Military subs are generally unstable in static dives as long and thin and made for speed - they maintain themselves on even keel by dynamic surfaces - they fly trough the water like an airplane - in my prototype (http://concretesubmarine.com) a big amount of ballast in a deep belly gives stability in static dives - this is also of mayor importance at snorkel mode. This prototype was not only stable in diving, it was also stable at snorkeling and surface operation.

Cheers Wil

[wellmer]

Hello Mesuge,
...the suggested tank building concept sounds a bit complicated to me...have my own ideas on this...i am a fan of building a barren hull then ballast it in the way described on my website with a flat floor - finally doing the interior in good old yacht building woodworking ... no need of hullintegrated ... see (www.concretesubmarine.com) - expedition submarine section - anyhow i am not sure if i understand your concept properly...
Cheers Wil

[Mesuge]

Hi Wil,
?as posted earlier, the "hull-integrated tanks/storage" at least with fixed ballast tank for sand has been suggested firstly by you and Carsten and then developed further in another post suggesting to use drainage plug technique in concrete construction. Which is basically to put shaped Styrofoam inside the fresh concrete and then pull it out after curing -> you end up with nice 3d channels inside the concrete block..

The problem is there is not that much decription of your ballast system on your web pages, would you please make a simple diagram - something like Euronaut has on its website?..

--

Anyway, I'd rather like to know your comments on this proposed inflatable cat/trimaran float platfrom setup for additional living space - just imagine if installed on both sides in that 14m psub yacht that is at least:

....shore.......beach....bay.......palmas..........
.............................................................
.............................................................
..................................x...........................
..5x3=15m2(starboard) [ || ] 5x3=15m2(port)....
..................................v..........................
............................................................
............................................................
...............ocean view..............................

(in total = 30m2 of additional living space, obviously only at times you are "parked" on the surface and not submerged..)
for very little add. costs..

[dccd]

Hello Mesuge,
...the suggested tank building concept sounds a bit complicated to me...have my own ideas on this...i am a fan of building a barren hull then ballast it in the way described on my website with a flat floor - finally doing the interior in good old yacht building woodworking ... no need of hullintegrated ... see (www.concretesubmarine.com) - expedition submarine section - anyhow i am not sure if i understand your concept properly...
Cheers Wil
I think Mesuge and I are trying to describe a interior that has a series of recesses similar to a girder grillage in a FRP hull. If you look up in a large multi-story parking garage you have a perfect example of the open "coffers". Those recesses could be used to support rubber fuel/water cells. Someone mentioned snorkeling? Many years ago I can up with a concept for a globe trotting Semi-sub yacht, very similar in size to wellmer's sub. It was my stab at a inexpensive, simple way to traverse oceans in a relatively small craft. Steel hull, pure diesel power, no elect or air scubbers 45' depths max. I thought of a concept to make it failsafe and stabile (with sail?) by having a weighted keel drop when any pressure breach occurred in the interior. The idea was to retain the keel connection in a recess void filled with pressure filled bladders which would shrink and release when interior pressure was lost or it sunk too deep and the depth would shrink the retainer bladders and the keel would fall away. I dont like depending on underwater release latches either, basic semi-sub yacht sketch attached.

[wellmer]

dccd Design director
...Many years ago I can up with a concept for a globe trotting Semi-sub yacht, very similar in size to wellmer's sub. It was my stab at a inexpensive, simple way to traverse oceans in a relatively small craft...

Hello dccd,
..very interesting concept! in fact the biggest and most urgent problem for somebody who lives on a yacht is the hurricane season that urges the skipper to be or leave certain parts of the worlds oceans according to a strict calender. A semi sub yacht - snorkelboat - as you suggest would give you the benefit of a save harbor anywhere similar to a submarine - just go beneath the waves.
Sail power on a submarine is not so ridiculous as it looks at first sight - in fact i could not withstand the temptation to put a surfsail on my prototypes front snorkel to see what happens. The submarine made quite a nice speed in this configuration...

What concerns catamaran floats and removable decks on anchor place this will not be limited by technical possibilities but by the owners will do deploy and store that kind of extensions.

Cheers Wil

[Julius]

Very interesting discussion (and website).

I would have a few ideas for such a c-sub,too which I would like to share and get input on.

1. How feasable would a submarine with a pressure chamber be?
My idea is to use such a submarine as a mobile diving habitat, which should have the option to release divers (and a ROV) while maintaining the 1ATM inside pressure AND also be able to adjust to enviroment pressure to act as a divers habitat for research purposes (and thus allow longer diving times)
Think this: http://www.uncw.edu/aquarius/ but mobile ;)

2. What are your ideas concerning a more modular hull, maybe consisting out of conrete speares connected by pressure locks inside a secondary hull (not pressurized)?
Wouldn't this allow for easier replacement of parts, while also increasing pressure capacity AND savety (since indiviual parts can be locked of)? Hmm but on the other hand I like the simplicity of your current design :)
Edit: You mention such a concept shortly on your website, would you care to explain your thoughts on this further?

3. A very outlandish idea: What about Skysails ( http://skysails.info/ ; basicly a kitesail for ships) as a mean of propulsion? Would it work submerged? Where's the most stable point to fix it to the hull to avoid unnessecary stress?
Oh and could the propulsion rotor connected to the electric motor work in reverse to charge up the batteries while "sailing"? And how effective would that be?

4. What are your general thoughts on a mostly electric powered sub anyways? With recent improvements in battery technology those Li-Ion ones should pack a considerable amout of power and range, while working as nice heavy ballast that does not get "used up" thus avoiding problems with loss of ballast (=fuel) during a longer voyage.
A small general purpose disel generator should be added that could also be taken out of the sub for other purposes of course, but that should really only be an not often used option for refuling places that do not have a reliable source of power.
Or am I missing a important part of the hole picture?

Edit: 5. what about using a CO2 scrubber system invented for divers? Is there any reason why this wouldn't work in a submarine?
Link: http://www.customrebreathers.com/

Thanks!

[wellmer]

...what concerns pressure chambers in a submarine yacht with a concrete hull as lined out at: ( http://concretesubmarine.com ) to have a pressure chamber you need a submarine of a certain size, some 70-100 tons is minimum. If you have a pressure chamber it should be made of steel as this is better for internal pressure applications. To get an idea how a pressure chamber in a submarine can work check out carsten standfuss and his submarine euronaut this is best intent to the theme diver lockout and saturation diving from a relatively small submarine i have seen so far. On the other hand why would you use a diver from a submarine (except military reasons) - For salvatage investigation i am a fan of other options. You can deploy a ROV with a lot more efficiency. Or stay at 1atm with a Newt Suit.

Cheers Wil

[wellmer]

i have a chapter on my website about habitats - i still did not find the time to fill the stuff in this is coming soon. The basic idea is that concrete hulls allow you forming giant spheres with no size limit while steel is limited to some 2m diameter as pointed out. So this opens the way for a sphere of lets say 10m diameter that is not so much intended to be a ship but goes in the direction to the trilobis - living and working at open ocean. It could dive - to extreme depth deploy ROVs - Newt Suit divers and maintain the living space to stay for weeks on a work station in open ocean - independent from surface. Basically in 2 variations as deep sea habitat without view ports - and as below surface habitat for ocean living that avoid wave action with big acrylic bubbles for natural light.

Cheers Wil

[wellmer]

julius, a deep diver with a series of spheres as pressure hull, and a streamline outer hull is a concept i also have discussed with carsten in germany. Concrete spheres could go very deep if you spare viewports average ocean floor might come in range to such a boat. If you study building history of TRIESTE you see that limiting factor is the size of the steel sphere. This is basically true for all deep diving concepts from ALVIN to MIR, etc... all those submarines have zero autonomy due to the small interior space and there is no way to make really big spheres from steel titanium, glass, whatever - concrete hulls do NOT have that size limit - so you can make a very big submarine that goes very deep and is very independent due to its size - only from concrete not from other materials. This could lead to a mother ship free deep sea working concept deploying ROVS and newt suits from a sub as outlined. Deploying ROVS from a sub has the big advatage of getting rid of cable spooling and risky - storm coming in take ROV aboard - operations.

[wellmer]

Julius, In general submarines are able to move efficient and economic with little engine power as they move below weather and wave resistance. Any mechanism or engine that can create a constant force is able to move a submarine - the necessary force is SURPRISINGLY low basically a submarine is suspended in liquid space - small constant forces can move it. Cheers Wil

[wellmer]

hydraulic generators are a quite common thing installed on may sailing yachts. Work basically the same way as a wind turbine just in water. The advantage is that energy content in water stream is by a factor 800 higher than in wind so you can work with far less rotor diameter.

[wellmer]

Hello Julian,
...based on the experience with my prototype submarine i would go for a diesel only configuration on a submarine yacht. If any i would have a very small battery pack for the reasons explained in ( http://concretesubmarine.com ) project 98 ton expedition submarine yacht. The need to make miles under water with electric power is a military need only. In a yacht submarine you have blissful drift dives, similar to a balloon, use your engine under snorkel, or lie on sea floor watching marine live coming to you. As any scuba diver knows only freshman moves around a lot while diving. The need to go under engine to a cite is a lack of dive point planning.

[Julius]

On the other hand why would you use a diver from a submarine (except military reasons) - For salvatage investigation i am a fan of other options. You can deploy a ROV with a lot more efficiency. Or stay at 1atm with a Newt Suit.


I agree with you that the option to deploy divers while staying at 1ATM isn't particualry usefull, but having a pressure chamber on board of a divers vessel that can also do this task is quite beneficial for health reasons.
But if you have a closer look at that aquarius link it should be quite clear that the option to deploy divers with an equalized pressure in the sub is extremely usefull for long time (1-2weeks) marine historical excavations, and I think even more so for biological research due to the extended (basicly unlimited) diving time. All in relative shallow water of course (~40m).

[RatliffFranklin]

Julius, In general submarines are able to move efficient and economic with little engine power as they move below weather and wave resistance. Any mechanism or engine that can create a constant force is able to move a submarine - the necessary force is SURPRISINGLY low basically a submarine is suspended in liquid space - small constant forces can move it. Cheers Wil

The Hunley weighed something like 40,000 pounds, with six men cranking had maybe 5 horsepower being delivered to the prop, yet was able to maneuver effectively in Charleston bay.

[RatliffFranklin]

Hello Julian,
...based on the experience with my prototype submarine i would go for a diesel only configuration on a submarine yacht. If any i would have a very small battery pack for the reasons explained in ( http://concretesubmarine.com ) project 98 ton expedition submarine yacht. The need to make miles under water with electric power is a military need only. In a yacht submarine you have blissful drift dives, similar to a balloon, use your engine under snorkel, or lie on sea floor watching marine live coming to you. As any scuba diver knows only freshman moves around a lot while diving. The need to go under engine to a cite is a lack of dive point planning.

Air Independent Propulsion.

http://www.kockums.se/Submarines/aipstirling.html

http://www.navyleague.org/seapower/aip_alternative.htm

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/03/india-looks-to-modify-scorpene-subs-with-mesma-aip-propulsion/index.php

http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA304112

[dccd]

The Hunley was not quiet a nimble beast but it did get the job done. The prototype " Pioneer" 35' sub was built here in New Orleans and tested with three "man" power, in 1864. The same Hunley team built another sub in Mobile the "American Diver" before the better known Hunley sub which has been raised. Pioneer and American Diver sketches shown...We did a full size reproduction on display in the local maritime museum. While doing so we found an excellent section drawing done before it was sold for scrap in 1865.

[wellmer]

I agree with you that the option to deploy divers while staying at 1ATM isn't particualry usefull, but having a pressure chamber on board of a divers vessel that can also do this task is quite beneficial for health reasons.
But if you have a closer look at that aquarius link it should be quite clear that the option to deploy divers with an equalized pressure in the sub is extremely usefull for long time (1-2weeks) marine historical excavations, and I think even more so for biological research due to the extended (basicly unlimited) diving time. All in relative shallow water of course (~40m).

Hi Julius,
I agree in general that diving from a sub is scuba diving with all its limitations. To achieve depth below that you would have to pack a saturation dive operation into a sub. This means space of 3 containers - at least - only for saturation dive needs. So you need a very big sub for that...carsten from germany has pushed the limits in this field...his 70 tonner euronaut is designed as a saturation dive base the whole submarine can work as deco chamber.
Cheers Wil

[Julius]

Hmm not sure I completely understood your last post.

Of course turning the complete sub into a deco chamber wouldn't be advisable in a concrete submarine as it is only stable to pressure from the outside, not from the inside right?

But why would you need as much space as 3 containers for such a submarine - saturation dive base hybrid?
What I mean is that a ~100ton c-sub like you describe it on your page seems big enough to have a steel deco chamber of lets say 8-10 cubic meters with two exits (one to the outside) inside of it and enough pressurized air to also increase the pressure inside to ambient levels in the entire submarine for extended periods (to work as a saturation dive base).

It should also have enough living space(=sleeping space) for 2-3 people working as divers, or am I missing something?

[wellmer]

julius...saturation diving is not only a diver chamber the chamber is the smallest element of a total system. Once a pair of divers is under saturation you can not de-comprimize them for several days - maybe for weeks. This means your system must be prepared to maintain and supply all the needs that 2 divers have during weeks - this includes food, shower, toilet, sleeping, leisure time, medical emergencies, - all in a artificial controlled gas atmosphere that never must fail which means all systems double and backed up, even a rescue and transfer chamber for case of emergency... so a saturation system is a lock out chamber, a living chamber, a toilet chamber, a sleeping chamber, a dry chamber, a wet chamber a atmosphere control system, a water heating system , a special communication system, - saturation diving means a ship - a big one - with a crew and technicians and systems dedicated to supply the saturation diver teams needs under any thinkable circumstance. This goes far beyond what you can pack in 10 cubic meters...
There is a general tendency to cut saturation diving out and go for 1atm suits or work with ROVs due to cost and risk factor in saturation diving.

You are right - you can make the whole sub a saturation chamber - see carstens boat euronaut. In this case the boat is designed to work equally with several ATM internal overpressure - you can do this with steel - not with concrete. Concrete is good for external pressure only.

cheers wil

[Julius]

Hmm I guess I simply had a different degree of saturated diving in mind ;) You are completely right, real cutting edge saturated diving is not feasable on such a small ship, or at least not without serious savety concerns).

I was thinking about low tech/low cost saturated diving like it is described in that aquarius link, with shallow dephs of 20-40 meters at the very maximum, which lowers the needed time of decompression to a few days at the very most (Aquarius needs a 17h decompression from 63feet).
Thus the deco chamber is really only needed for emergencys.

Normally a c-sub/saturated diving hybrid I imagine would dive to the place/depth needed, fix it's position somehow, and then adjust the internal pressure to ambient levels.
After 10 days or so underwater time (with plenty of time for the divers to reseach) the internal pressure would then slowly be lowered to 1 ATM again over the course of 1-2 days by an electrical air compressor (at no time would there be a internal pressure higher than the external pressure).
Thus the internal pressure chamber is only needed for emergencys, or if the submarine was to shortly visit the surface to resupply (if needed at all), while the divers stay in the chamber.

Does that sound feasable?

[wellmer]

you can do that...you have to solve a couple of practical problems similar those that arrise in underwater hotels. Just think about divers coming in with wet suits bringing saltwater to your living space, computer circuits, etc. so you need a lock out, a diver shower, dry, and change room with equipment wet and dry store - this will still take more space than 10 cubic meters. To apply this you should think more of a submarine dive base, than a submarine yacht. A habitat based on a sphere of some 6m diameter with a wet-level and dry level as lined out in my website could be a solution. It would be kind of conshelf but with sufficient living space and independence to run the decompression at end of the saturation phase in the habitat itself, controlled by the saturation crew itself - independent of surface assistance. Stays the basic question - is exposing humans to a hostile and potential lethal ambient the best way to get the work done and to investigate. When Cousteau proclaimed the saturation diving aquanaut back in the 60ties there where no alternatives for getting work or investigation done like tele-presence and 1atm suits. It was the time when Astronauts would conquer space. Seems that both astronauts and aquanauts are bound to extinction and be replaced by newer, risk free, more cost efficient concepts. Bob Ballard has a nice story he tells now and then to bing this to the point. When hydrothermal vents with those new extreme lifeforms where first undiscovered by a ROV in the 70ties it was a geological expedition - so imagine - the biggest biological discovery of the century and no biologist on board the expedition ship. It took 3 years to get another expedition together - now with biologists and alvin as diveboat to return to the hydrothermal vent site. First dive, the biologist - finally - can get a first direct view to those new lifeforms after 3 years of delay. In the meanwhile Ballard is testing a ROV on the other side of ALVINs cabin. After a while Ballard notices that the biologist has abandoned the viewport and is looking over Ballards shoulder to see the ROV monitor. So Ballard says - i cant believe it you have waited 3 years, spent a million of dollars in expedition cost, dived 4000 meters deep to get a first direct view of those liveforms and you are not looking at them ??!!! - The biologist answers: What i need to know about those lifeforms - i can see it better on your ROV monitor than in a direct view. Concludes Ballard - "I have been working on ROVs ever since"...and that was back in the 70ties when ROV and camera technology was by far less developed...
Other than in the 60ties there is no thing in the ocean you could not see, not grab, not investigate by far better with ROV than with a saturation diver. So diving is fine for enjoying the shallow ocean - do scuba - but if colonization of oceans will take place it will probably be maintaining humans at 1atm.
Cheers Wil

[wellmer]

- what is the benefit of a submarine yacht ? i tried to sum it in eleven points...

save harbor beneath the waves

no hurricane season wandering

marina and harbor free operation

closed burglar and pirate safe

quiet living space at sea

drift dive operation

economic cruising

small engine

enormous range

lower slip and maintainance cost

lower hull building and engine cost

Cheers Wil

[Julius]

small engine

Hmm, after reading your site and that of the euronaut project, I started to wonder if that is maybe only the case in a calm lake such as the one you tested your prototype in. Because the euronaut sub has a quite big 190 horse power diesel electric engine, and they expect it to run (only?) at 8kn.

Is there a easy way to calculate the optimal hullspeed for a submarine?
Oh and wouldn't it be quite hard to maneuver a very heavy mass (100t) with only a small engine (due to the high inertia)?


Another interesting thing would surly be how you would design the internal steel frame of a concrete sub.
I am guessing that it must be completely covered by the concrete to avoid rusting, but if that is the case how would you connect for example a tugging point at the outside, or how are the steel hatches connected to the hull? Just drilling holes into the concrete as connection points (especially if you want to tug the entire sub with it) seems to be a too weak link (and it would probably also weaken the pressure resistance).
Or is it simply just fine to have the main steel frame sticking out of the concrete in some way?

Last but not least, the slip form way of molding the concrete woud probably mean a vertical assembly of the hull.
If that is the case, I could imagine that building a submarine longer that 10meters in one piece could prove quite difficult, not only in assembly but also getting it into the water (after all if is a very heavy object).
Related to that: if it isn't assembled in once piece, which would be really beneficial for the building of the interior also, how do you connected the pieces afterwards in a pressure and longitudional force resistant manner?

[wellmer]

Hmm, after reading your site and that of the euronaut project, I started to wonder if that is maybe only the case in a calm lake such as the one you tested your prototype in...

- i am sure that my test site is anything else than calm, on contrary it reflects a surprisingly wide range of conditions from tropic in summer to ice in winter, storms that make the roof of a -well built- house fly away and crack trees like a match - i get this opinion especially since i know first hand the conditions in open pacific ocean from my activities in malpelo expeditions and open boat tours in the caribbean in tropical storms. I agree to what Bobby Schenk (german sailing legend) is saying about weather: - i have sailed 3 times around the world lived for years in polynesia got trapped by a cyclone in the pacific - but i assure you that some of the worst weather conditions i experienced in my life was on alpine lakes... this is due to the fact that mountains around a lake create pressure and temperature differences you NEVER see on open sea where weather develops relatively slowly and maintains steady.
Cheers Wil

[wellmer]

... the euronaut sub has a quite big 190 horse power diesel electric engine, and they expect it to run (only?) at 8kn.

Is there a easy way to calculate the optimal hullspeed for a submarine?


hull speed of a submarine yacht
the speed of a displacement yacht is given by its lenght/widh ratio there are lots of formulas about that - some simple some complicated which basically all lead to a graph energy versus speed that starts horizontally and then goes vertically. Which basically means that a displacement hull needs very little energy to move at a few knots and than needs a lot of energy to go ANY faster and finally comes to a point where all energy input converts completely to turbulence and waves and not speed. Where this point is depends basically on length of the hull. This is why old shipbuilders said "length runs".
If you see a heavy fishing boat passing by what you will see is waves - waves is energy - energy that the engine has to produce and that is not useful for speed. When you see a submerged sub passing by you see NO waves so a sub spares this wave resistance. This is why subs use their propulsion energy more efficient than surface ships. So the answer how fast a sub can be is simply it can go to speeds given by displacement hull formula AND it can do it more energy efficient - with less energy input. So if you ask yourself how fast would a 12m submarine go ask the captain of a 12m heavy fishing boat how fast he can go - ask for his engine power. Take for granted that a sub with the same length and the same engine will come to same speed - just it may do it at half throttle - if well designed and blimp shaped. This is the physics behind the fact that nature has eliminated the concept of long distance surface swimming during evolution - no long distance surface swimming animal exists because this is not energy efficient. Even whales that need surface for breathing (because they started as a surface animal similar to a otter -ambulocetus-) swim now below surface - why ? because they cruise up to 12,000 miles each year and nature shapes all animals to be energy efficient. Here we are - if you are looking for a model for a energy efficient ocean crossing submarine yacht take this. A 200 ton whale with a length of 30m (cut some of the tail section for hydrodynamic efficient length - take some 25m) can come up to a speed of 30 knots and has been measured at those speeds. Biologists and Physiologists estimate its maximum power output at 400 horsepower. Whales are mammals so their energy physiology is similar to other mammals. Which means there is a big gap between the energy output you can get from the organism in a emergency situation for a few minutes of fast swim and the energy output you can get 24 hours a day. The most educated guess on that is a factor 10 you can run very fast for 1 minute but if you wander 24 hours a day you have to do it at a slower rithm. This means what you have on a whale tail 24 hours a day during wandering is maybe 40 horsepower possibly less. If you take into account that whales do not feed which means do not re-fuel 6-8 months during wandering - how is this possible ? - only if they use VERY VERY little energy for swimming over VERY VERY long distances. What is the efficient speed range ? Smaller whales cruise at some 3 knots bigger whales at up to 6 knots. Taking a stream speed of 3 knots in your favor as ben franklin did in its 30 day Golf Stream drift dive - you could have a whale economic ocean crossing at 9knots over ground in a submarine yacht - not bad ! Having this in mind i took my prototype concrete submarine to water back in 1996 it was whale shaped had 20 tons like a small whale and my most important question was not top speed with a big engine - this is quite clear anyhow - my question was the limbo - how low can you go... so what i did first was installing a ridiculously small electric engine of 200W into the sub and pushed the switch. - What happened? First nothing then after a couple of seconds the hull took up speed and kept taking up speed until it reached a speed of what would be in the range of a whale efficient cruising speed - some 3 knots. So i never came to the point to install the big combustion engine i had in mind in first place - it was not necessary. I later put a small generator in to reload the small battery pack and extend the range - that was all. In all my submarine yachting years i never saw a situation i would have had a need for a bigger engine. This ridiculously small engine pushed me trough storms had no problem to get nose into the wind... So i am well aware what engine size is recommended for surface yachts - BUT - based on my own experience i would be concerned that such a engine would have a short life in a yacht submarine yacht because it has to run all the time in under load during cruising . I also have no problem if somebody wants a 400hp engine in a 200 ton submarine yacht to run all the time at whale emergency speed of 30 knots - you could water ski behind it...
My personal preference is doing it like those gentle giants - cruise oceans energy efficient at moderate speed.

carstens euronaut is designed as a saturation and technical diving base for documentation and heavy salvatage in carstens home area - big compressors, big electrical equipment needs - his engine reflects that. Euronaut is built to work as diver host not optimized as economic cruising yacht... so very different cases very different needs very different solutions...do not compare...

Cheers Wil

[Mesuge]

Wil> but in terms of precise manevours I'd fit the c-sub with a couple of bow thursters..

In any case my top list of efficient/luxury cruisng is as follows:

1. Big c-sub, with deploarable side inflatable hulls and large bimini/tent for giant surface camping (see my pictures page #5)
2. Big catamaran 40-60' Wharram or Duflex kit based (but expensive and laborious 4000-8000hours)
3. Small 7-8m (cabins in hulls) trailable catamaran upto 750kg, prefferably upto 500kg
4. Small 7-8m inflatable catamaran with sail kit aka take your cat on the plane/train/bus/car/bike with cargotrailer
5. Any sailing yacht of classical design

[wellmer]

...Another interesting thing would surly be how you would design the internal steel frame of a concrete sub.
I am guessing that it must be completely covered by the concrete to avoid rusting, but if that is the case how would you connect for example a tugging point at the outside, or how are the steel hatches connected to the hull? Just drilling holes into the concrete as connection points (especially if you want to tug the entire sub with it) seems to be a too weak link (and it would probably also weaken the pressure resistance).
Or is it simply just fine to have the main steel frame sticking out of the concrete in some way?


connectors hull

when it comes to anchor things in a concrete hull you should look to concrete building sites. You can do with a concrete hull more or less what you can do with a structural column in a building. Drill a hole in of about 10cm depth put water in to get the drilling dust out then fill in fixation cement and finally a piece of steel rebar. Wait a week or two - now you have a anchor point in steel. If you put a hydraulic cylinder on that anchor and pull with several tons of force you will find that it will not break out - it will hold to a point where you get the steel extruded but it still stays anchored in the concrete. So you can get steel anchors in a concrete piece as easy or even easier than in a steel hull and you can get it AFTER building the hull whenever the need appears. On that kind of steel anchors you can solder a steel tank with several tons and it will hold. So you can perform a barren hull and make the anchor points for the interior LATER. But be always aware that your hull is a structural piece - so do not do things you would not do in a structural column in a building - hammer out a big piece to put the family safe in - for example. If you put a reasonable number of small holes for steel anchors in it will be no problem. In glass fiber, carbon fiber, ferro cement yachts one of the mayor issues is that you MUST integrate everything into the form as you can not drill holes in and create fixation points LATER in a reasonable and technical correct way. In a thick walled concrete piece you can. Yust go to a building site and see steel fittings, wood panels, aluminmum covers get fixed to structural columns and thick concrete pieces all the time - no technical problem at all. Integrate big things like a steel flange for a diver chamber into the form but there is no need to plan every single anchor point for your interior panels - even a a tow point to hold a couple of tons can be made later. It is not necessary to solder a anchor to the rebar net as long as you anchor it sufficiently deep into the concrete - below 3cm break out is impossible.

Forget those complicated aproaches of steel frame sticking out...
Cheers Will

[xarax]

...,so one adds a keel with a lead ballast and a snorkel/mast, and here he goes! Such a craft can be faster than a monohull displacement sail boat of the same length... :)

[wellmer]

Why submarine yachting makes sense


* save harbor beneath the waves
* no hurricane season wandering
* marina and harbor free operation
* closed burglar and pirate safe
* quiet living space at sea
* drift dive operation
* economic cruising
* small engine
* enormous range
* lower slip and maintainance cost
* lower hull building and engine cost


save harbor beneath the waves

A surface yacht, needs to be designed to have the means to withstand adverse weather conditions or to reach a safe harbor before such conditions come up.

For a submarine yacht a save harbor is always near - just a few meters below. This has a mayor impact in the way how you operate a submarine yacht vs a surface yacht and in its cost o operation. First of all your tour plan is not limited by weather forecast and by harbors available along your route.

no hurricane season wandering

A submarine yacht as suggested at (www.concretesubmarine.com) exposes almost no surface of its hull to weather except a small sail (tower). So you can get the nose into the wind with a very small engine under any condition. On anchor place this means that the bow area is not lifted in any wave as it is the case in a surface ship which tends to bring tremendous forces to the anchor rig, which is the cause of anchor break out in severe conditions. A submarine yacht as my tested prototype brings very little force to the anchor rig - even in storm conditions.

For surface yacht you need to find a hurricane save place during hurricane season so yacht owners frequently move their ships. A submarine yacht you can be left on anchor place in a open bay during that time - no weather condition will damage or affect it - this is a mayor cost benefit.


marina and harbor free operation

A surface yacht must stay in marinas due to its vulnerability to weather - a submarine yacht allows true marina free operation any place is ok to stay during your trip you can have a nice meal and a fine night sleep in open sea.

closed burglar and pirate safe

A burglar can break into a surface yacht of any kind using a light hand tool - this is not the case for a submarine yacht. A hatch can be made with security features of a bank safe - break in with tools you can deploy on an anchor place is impossible. A act of piracy is also impossible a pirate can get on deck - but never into the hull.

quiet living space at sea

The main reason why yachts stay a lot in marinas and very little time at sea is wave action. A submarine yacht can go to snorkel depth and is perfectly quiet in a minute without relaying on breakwaters. You can have a nice meal and go to sleep with no ship movement and security concern at all. Sub surface living space is the only quiet and safe living space available at open sea.

drift dive operation

In July 1996 Ben Franklin a 130 ton research submarine made a drift dive of 30 days over a distance of 2700km in Golf Stream. This dive compared with a submarine balloon trip was performed without any engine use. Submarines that have a non-compressible buoyancy regulation can stay stable at certain depth to do that kind of voyage.

economic cruising

No long distance surface swimming animal exists because this is not energy efficient. Even whales that need surface for breathing (because they started as a surface animal similar to a nutria -ambulocetus-) swim now below surface - why ? because they cruise up to 12,000 miles each year and nature shapes all animals to be energy efficient. Here we are - if you are looking for a model for a energy efficient ocean crossing submarine yacht take this. A 200 ton whale with a length of 30m (cut some of the tail section for hydrodynamic efficient length - take some 25m) can come up to a speed of 30 knots and has been measured at those speeds. Biologists and Physiologists estimate its maximum power output at 400 horsepower. Whales are mammals so their energy physiology is similar to other mammals. Which means there is a big gap between the energy output you can get from the organism in a emergency situation for a few minutes of fast swim and the energy output you can get 24 hours a day. The most educated guess on that is a factor 10 you can run very fast for 1 minute but if you wander 24 hours a day you have to do it at a slower rithm. This means what you have on a whale tail 24 hours a day during wandering is maybe 40 horsepower possibly less. If you take into account that whales do not feed which means do not re-fuel 6-8 months during wandering - how is this possible ? - only if they use VERY VERY little energy for swimming over VERY VERY long distances. What is the efficient speed range ? Smaller whales cruise at some 3 knots bigger whales at up to 6 knots. Taking a stream speed of 3 knots in your favor as ben franklin did in its 30 day Golf Stream drift dive - you could have a whale economic ocean crossing at 9knots over ground in a submarine yacht - not bad ! Having this in mind i took my prototype concrete submarine to water back in 1996 it was whale shaped had 20 tons like a small whale and my most important question was not top speed with a big engine - this is quite clear anyhow - my question was the limbo - how low can you go... so what i did first was installing a ridiculously small electric engine of 200W into the sub and pushed the switch. - What happened? First nothing then after a couple of seconds the hull took up speed and kept taking up speed until it reached a speed of what would be in the range of a whale efficient cruising speed - some 3 knots. So i never came to the point to install the big combustion engine i had in mind in first place - it was not necessary. I later put a small generator in to reload the small battery pack and extend the range - that was all. In all my submarine yachting years i never saw a situation i would have had a need for a bigger engine. This ridiculously small engine pushed me trough storms had no problem to get nose into the wind... So i am well aware what engine size is recommended for surface yachts - BUT - based on my own experience i would be concerned that such a engine would have a short life in a yacht submarine yacht because it has to run all the time in under load during cruising . I also have no problem if somebody wants a 400hp engine in a 200 ton submarine yacht to run all the time at whale emergency speed of 30 knots - you could water ski behind it...
My personal preference is doing it like those gentle giants - cruise oceans energy efficient at moderate speed.

small engine

So the recommendation for a engine in a submarine yacht must be between 2HP/ ton which is emergency power for a blue whale. This is already considerably less than you would have in a surface yacht but you should be aware that in a surface yacht you need a engine surplus to fight against a storm that could smash you against a reef. For a submarine yacht you could get away with a even smaller engine that would take you just to efficient cruising speed which is the range of 0.2 HP / ton of displacement. You may have a engine that is 5-10 times smaller than a similar sized surface yacht which means a mayor reducction in building and maintainance cost.

enormous range

In a yacht submarine you have about half of the displacement as ballast weight. If you push it to the extreme you could replace all your ballast with diesel tanks. This would give you a tank reserve of 100.000 liter in a 200 ton submarine yacht. Which can take you 10.000 cruising hours at 3 miles/hour - So without taking the possible tank volume to the limits - you can have a tank size for oceancrossings in a submarine yacht.

lower slip and maintainance cost

The concrete submarine hulls of our concepts are built according to the same rules that apply to submarine tunnels and bridge foundations - in the same way the only surface that is exposed to saltwater environment is a rounded concrete surface - therefore the maintainance needed is similar to a bridge foundation or tunnel - it stays in water for liftime - no dry dock, no painting, no sandblasting, - this is a mayor maintainance cost reduction compared to a normal yacht.


lower hull building and engine cost

The hull building cost of our concrete hulls is less than 1/3 of building a comparable steel hull. The engine size you will build in is less than half of the horsepower you would have on a surface yacht of similar size. This is a mayor building cost reduction compared to a surface yacht.


see more: http://concretesubmarine.com


sail handling is not the strong point of a submarine yacht as you can not place a mast on deck and have no space for sail handling - also form stability is a critical point in sail area you can pack on a boat - and a submarine has almost no form stability - so if sailing it is limited to auxilary sail on a snorkel or to flying sails type kite surfing. Not very suitable solutions for fast regatta solutions... there are many reasons to go for a submarine yacht - fast regatta sailing is not among them...

Cheers Wil

[wellmer]

There is a discussion about concrete submarines going on at http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/boat-design/concrete-submarine-24361.html

Cheers,

Wil

[LyndonJ]

Smugglers vessels, ultimate hideaway but a cruising submarine you’re kidding .............surely.:confused: :confused: :confused:

Surface vessels will always be faster more efficient, safer and more serviceable

Lots of very well trained professional submariners have been lost in small submarines they are inherently dangerous vehicles.

The sub will need just as regular antifouling as any surface vessel.

People do go nuts in small confined spaces very quickly, they want to see the sky the sun and feel the wind and breath fresh air.

Weather can both aid and hinder a passage similarly for currents. Currents will be the real bugbear for the submerged craft, a 2 knot current on the nose is going to make for a very slow passage in you are submerged in it.

Wave orbital action can be deep in heavy weather orbital waves set up lower submerged orbital currents these can propagate surprisingly deep in sustained heavy weather. Even I think to 300 ft before the sub could trim properly because it was being rolled around this was in a typhoon after a few days. Standard oceanography says that the wave orbital effect is significant to a depth of one half the wavelength below the average surface height. That means you need to go mighty deep to escape an angry sea, at the same time you cannot surface or you will be thrown around being so tender as to sustain damage to people and equipment- catch 22 if anything goes wrong.

On the surface it will be very tender and a propensity to roll deeply. this will not be a comfortable surface vessel in other than smooth water. No safe decks or cockpit make submersibles very poor and unsafe surface platforms at sea and deadly on deck in heavy weather.

Risk of collision is high, risk of entanglement is higher, rescue is unlikely for a submersible, high risk of collision when submerging and surfacing particularly when surfacing, even US military subs hit yachts and fishing boats when surfacing.

A common loss has been the failure of ballast blowing equipment as the sub dives ironically it must lighten itself, if it can’t it dives rapidly.

Coastal cruising
Sitting on the bottom with what water overhead? If you have a snorkel up then presumably you can be hit by a ship or deep keeled racing yachts bulb keel ( imagine 8 tons of bulbed keel at 25 knots ). If you havn’t a snorkel up then it’s the odors and the stale air.

Then there’s the grim reality of humans in a small space that gets lost in the fantasy world of Jules Verne.

Even if you like being entombed consider Privacy, Fresh air, Rapid removal of odors. Human flatulence alone could turn the experience into a nightmare, the head tends to dominate a small surface boat and unless well ventilated then there’s the cooking smells body odour dirty socks and even vomit before you escape the rough weather……. and your supposed escape is to submerge to peace and tranquility?
Novelty might overcome claustrophobia for a while but for cruising you’d very quickly swap for a surface craft. It's also much colder below the surface which begs the question about heating.

Also in reality you need some very sophisticated and expensive equipment to be safe sane and sensible with a cruising submarine. Safety equipment, backup systems self releasing thethered epirb bouys , and the electronics package to 'see' and avoid all the obstacles.

I think you are much better marketing this as a specialist platform, forget the cruising it will be a disaster. You also need a number of equalizing escape hatches on different sides/ends of the vessel that can take a large man and his scuba gear.

As for engineering your website is a crackup, I must admit I laughed to see the whole analysis based on the assumption of a guess of the strength of a caisson that you have observed has not collapsed.
Given what you are achieving with such little engineering think what you could do with some decent analysis. :)

Couldn’t you do this in a FEA package ?

[Tcubed]

Here is a little video i found of a crude sub.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7VKF9sFBAo&feature=related

[wellmer]

No - on contrary locomotion below surface is far more efficient than on surface.
This is the reason why no long distance surface swimming animal is existing.
Even whales (that need surface to breath) swim below surface - Studies estimate that for a whale the difference between surface swimming and submerged swimming is about factor 5 - see more at:

http://imulead.com/tolimared/concretesubmarine/anuncios/ay/ (http://imulead.com/tolimared/concretesubmarine/anuncios/ay)

Cheers,

Wil
concretesubmarine.com

[wellmer]

No - modern civilian small subs have a excellent safety record. - indeed they are the vehicles with the best ever seen safety record ...

Cheers,

Wil

[wellmer]

Yes, to keep a submerged surface free of marine life you need the same antifouling no matter if it is a boat or a submarine.

But maintainance does not only mean barnacles - a steel hull needs sandblasting and recoating on a regular basis to conserve the steel - so if you have a steel hull - scrap off barnacles and leave the ship in water for several decades will not work. For a concrete hull it does work.

Cheers,
Wil

[wellmer]

Ben Franklin Drift dive was a testing out what is possible. Ben Franklin had 130 tons, a 4 man crew and did a month without ANY surfacing. ( Ian´s boat has 200 tons)

But months submerged is not my favorite scenario when i talk about submarine yachting - on contrary.

I think about a weekend trip to the rosario islands make a nice beach dinner on a un inhabitated island - and go for a fine night sleep in a shallow sandy bay just a few meter under water with the snorkel sticking out having a flashlight - on contrary to a surface yacht - not be concerned about a tropical storm at night or pirates coming on board. A simple yacht trip just cutting out the "run home for a safe marina" when sun goes down.

Check a day in a submarine yacht owners life:
http://imulead.com/tolimared/concretesubmarine/anuncios/ar#day

Cheers,
Wil

[LyndonJ]

Look Wil you are impassioned and an achiever BUT you are not critically analysing anything here. It's a great fantasy but in reality you need to consider things in more detail. You also need to provide some real data and calculations to support your claims. Not "read this fantasy that I wrote"

If you need to go to 200 tonnes displacement to make it workable then you have to slip the vessel weight and size, what does the 200 tonner weigh ??? If the ratio is the same as your other one close to 100 tons ? So you need to haul this each year in a shipyard. For the same internal usable cabin sole area you could achive this with 20 tons easily and get the decks and cocpit thrown in for free.

Then how are you measuring "EFFICIENCY" certainly not by the speed of the passage but by an idealistic propulsive force to reach a certain velocity for a certain mass. You are making the claims and you need to provide some meaningful numbers here.

What happens to that figure if you tried to match speeds..............then your argument is reversed big time. Also the sub for the same usable cabin space is massively less efficient by any criteria I can think of.

Most of the fun in yachting is being in the sun and seeing the view. Pirates can board you in daytime too in broad daylight. Rough weather will roll you on the bottom at snorkel depth and roll you more horribly on the surface.

Safety of current small subs is due to very high levels of technlogy and stringent training and support vessels . This high standard is becasue of the inherant dangers.
Nuclear power plants are safe so everyone can have them without problem in their personal subs too....... right !

[wellmer]

LyndonJ, i built and dived my first concrete submarine (a 1 tonner) at the age of 15 - i built a 20 tonner weekend concrete submarine yacht prototype in the mid nienties and tested the concept of submarine yachting extensivly for many years - this is the reason why people that trust me and give me the funds to make the 200 tonner submarine cruiser i am working on now - i made my homework - and i did my testing and prototyping. I do base things on step by step realization - not on fantasy.

Cheers,
Wil

[wellmer]

LyndonJ, i built and dived my first concrete submarine (a 1 tonner) at the age of 15 - i built a 20 tonner weekend concrete submarine yacht prototype in the mid nienties and tested the concept of submarine yachting extensivly for many years - this is the reason why i get the funds to make the 200 tonner submarine cruiser i am working on now - i made my homework - and i did my testing and prototyping. I do base things on step by step realization - not on fantasy.

The question of orbital wave action ... well i think you should step away from theory and ask a surfer why it is safer to dive below a wave than stay on surface (no-it must not be 300 ft - a few feet is sufficient) ...

collision .... this hollywood stuff - will not happen in submarine yachting practice .

laughing - flatulence - nightmare - nuclear power plants -

please keep the discussion here on a certain quality level or i am out - i do not have a lot of time to step into low level discussions - i am a busy man - i do provide working submarine yachts.


Cheers,
Wil
www.concretesubmarine.com

[LyndonJ]

Wellmer

It’s not much to ask for some sensible answers from someone who claims expertise. To me at least you appear to have some very questionable reasoning and a concerning lack of knowledge.

If you promote yourself and your concept on a public forum you can expect some searching questions and should be prepared to discuss it properly. You can then improve your knowledge arguments and design through such exchanges.

I think the nuclear power plant argument is about similar issues and is valid. Safety in subs is due to expensive quality equipment professionally designed It is also due to stringent screening and training of crew. You cannot argue that something is safe without considering why that is the case.

One atmosphere subs can become death traps very quickly, small subs are very much more dangerous than big ones since there is little or no redundancy. Collisions must be considered and nets cables and wreckage are a constant threat to immersed vehicles. There are experienced experts in this field that you can learn from too. What are your safety contingencies ? for example what does the operator do if entangled in a discarded trawl net?

The surf argument is rubbish, breaking wave energy is not the same as orbital effects. Wave orbital effects are deeper than you would like to believe. Your efficiency argument is questionable, Your claims of low maintenance are questionable, your piracy argument is questionable, you discount collisions as a danger, it all appears a bit hair-brained to promote such a vehicle as a common yacht.

Here’s a simple laymans guide to submarines for you from a very reputable source, a very quick search produced this:
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/faq.html
look at 21 and probably the rest of it too. Since it appears you are frighteningly uninformed.

[wellmer]

Wellmer
..claims expertise.... concerning lack of knowledge.

... be prepared to discuss it properly...

...stringent screening and training of crew...

... subs can become death traps very quickly...

...Collisions must be considered...

...nets cables and wreckage are a constant threat to immersed vehicles....

...there are experienced experts in this field that you can learn from too...

...what does the operator do if entangled in a discarded trawl net...

...The surf argument is rubbish, breaking wave energy is not the same as orbital effects...

..wave orbital effects are deeper than you would like to believe...

...Your efficiency argument is questionable...
...Your claims of low maintenance are questionable...
...your piracy argument is questionable...

...you discount collisions as a danger...

...hair-brained to promote such a vehicle as a common yacht...

Here’s a simple laymans guide to submarines for you from a very reputable source, a very quick search produced this:
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/faq.html
... it appears you are frighteningly uninformed.


Hello LyndonJ,

Maybe my reaction is sometimes a bit like a dentists reaction when receiving fatherly advise from a brain surgeon on teeth extraction...

Finally i am the guy who has built, and sailed, and tested concrete submarine yachts since the mid nighties - you really should have built a couple of concrete yachts to to treat me as you do -

i am prepared to discuss properly but not willing to repeat a emotional discussion with any bonehead that comes my way.

Many things you are saying are true - for military subs - but not very relevant for submarine yachts among those are the collision, the collision of the nuke boat with the japanese ship was due to the military style blow out surfacing - would never happen in a sub yacht that comes up with a speed of inch per minute similar to a scuba diver - what comes first out is a tube with a diveflag and a flash while the hull is still 4m down - anybody who do overrun that is so blind that he would overrun a oil tanker too.

The entanglement issue is in any submariners mind since a perry sub entangled his in a wreck - it was a design asking for entanglement that never should have operated so close to a wreck in first place ...

I would recomend a ROV with a cable cutter on board of a submarine yacht that plans close encounters of that kind.

Not every expert that feels expert is an expert - give me your field of expertise i will listen carfully what you have to say - as long as your statement is inside your field of expertise.

You seem not to be much of an expert to me on the topic of how deep you must go to be protected from wave force - a surfer is - at least at my planet.
I ensure you a few feet make a BIG difference - it is not gradually down to hundreds of feet as you suggest. Orbital action is relative theorical and irrelevant what is relevant is breaking force - at some level you seem consient of that so why the misslead ?

Everything in life is questionable...my expert status - yours - we do not get anywhere this way - so what i do is setting facts building and testing the submarine yachts i am talking about.

Thanks for your help pointing me to a military link to get informed about civil submarine yachting - you could point me to a rocket destroyer link to learn about sailing yachts or a battle jet link to learn about ultralight airplanes...

frightenly uninformed ? - the truth is always in the viewpoint...

let's get to a social adequate envelope here...you owe me some respect dude...

...now that we have done the social biting - can we do some real brainwork please!

Cheers,
Wil

[harlemriverman]

hi guys, i'm a structural engineer claiming zero expertise with concrete submarines. so i'll start with darn it, why didn't i think of this! what a great application for the material.

neophyte queston. is the batch mix comparable to say a pool mix? high strenght, shotcrete application?

[Submarine Tom]

Once again, arrogant egos prevail,

ignorant dialogue abounds,

and productive banter ceases.

Idiots.

[wellmer]

hi guys, i'm a structural engineer claiming zero expertise with concrete submarines. so i'll start with darn it, why didn't i think of this! what a great application for the material.

neophyte queston. is the batch mix comparable to say a pool mix? high strenght, shotcrete application?

Hello harlemriverman,

I like to work with normal concrete in cast application due to the "foreseeability" of the results. I have been looking at shotcrete - what i am not so comfortable with - is that shotcrete depends so much on the personal skills of the "nozzleman" - the other point is, that it seems quite difficult and time consuming to build up thick walls of uniform quality.

Cheers,
Wil

[wellmer]

hi guys, i'm a structural engineer claiming zero expertise with concrete submarines. so i'll start with darn it, why didn't i think of this! what a great application for the material.

neophyte queston. is the batch mix comparable to say a pool mix? high strenght, shotcrete application?

Hello harlemriverman,

I have 2 structural engineering questions.

1) In a concrete sub with the characteristics of my hulls (4,6m outer Diameter - 34cm wall thickness) would you expect Buckling to be a problem or a expected failure mode?

2) If you take such a hull to some 30m depth as we are planning - what percentage of the real concrete strength do you use?
How does this safety factor compare to typical safety factors in high rise building?

Thanks,
Wil

[marshmat]

Hey guys,

Thought I'd chime in on the shotcrete idea... with an emphatic NO!

I've been involved on a few projects where, for various reasons, someone decided that shotcrete would be a good idea. I also had to put up with a concrete canoe team attempting to build their boat with it once. It's a wasteful, difficult and messy system that is very dependent on the operator's skill. Enormous voids can easily become entrapped with no visible evidence if it isn't constantly monitored. I would strongly advise against using shotcrete for anything other than a swimming pool or foundation wall.

I can think of a number of ways to make a concrete mix that would work well for a c-sub hull. If I were building one I would likely look at designing the formwork to handle full liquid head. Then ask one of the more competent ready-mix firms to design a self-consolidating (SCC) mix for C-XL exposure class (see CSA A23.1), probably around 40 MPa (depending on structural calcs). By the time the prequalification trials are put together, chloride permeability tests done, etc. the up-front costs will be a bit higher than a conventional mix, and of course the mix itself will be a bit more expensive. But a good SCC mix with w/c ratio in the 0.3-0.4 range eliminates the need for vibrators, achieves near-perfect adhesion to the rebar, and if your forms are good will virtually eliminate honeycombing. (At one site I was at last year, we did a 400-metre pour with only two guys up top: one on the pipe and one on the pump controls. The same pour with conventional concrete would have taken twelve men, if it were even possible with the rebar densities we had.) For complex shapes I think it would be well worth the cost, especially since the concrete mix itself will probably be a relatively small component of the total cost of the c-sub.

[brian eiland]

Been away from the forums for quite awhile and missed this subject of submarines.

I do remember being quite fascinated with the Ben Franklin Gulf Stream Project as I was involved with submarines at the time, and also very interested in the field of oceanography. I've see it mentioned a few times on this subject thread, but no direct web-links to the subject....so I offer a few here:

http://www.sub-find.com/historical.htm

http://www.bosunsmate.org/benfranklintour.php

http://www.unexplainable.net/artman/...cle_1006.shtml (http://www.unexplainable.net/artman/publish/article_1006.shtml)
"In mid-July of 1969 the whole world was focused on NASA's Apollo 11 moon landing. But some people at NASA were focused on something else.

On July 14, just two days before the Apollo launch, the PX-15 deep sea submarine Ben Franklin was towed to the high-velocity center of the Gulf Stream off the coast of Palm Beach, Florida. With NASA observer Chester "Chet" May on board, the sub descended to 1,000 feet off of Riviera Beach, Florida and drifted 1,400 miles north with the current for more than four weeks, reemerging near Maine.

In addition to studying the warm water current which flows northeast off the U.S. East Coast, the sub also made space exploration history by studying the behavior of aquanauts in a sealed, self-contained, self-sufficient capsule for NASA. The mission is the focus of a program airing on the Science Channel"

Lots of other reference sites:
http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/FRANKLI...lin_links.html (http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/FRANKLIN/HTML/franklin_links.html)

Popular Mechanics article:
http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/FRANKLI...mechanics.html (http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/FRANKLIN/IMAGES/POPULAR_MECHANICS/popular_mechanics.html)

[wellmer]

...formwork to handle full liquid head...
You bring it to the point - the critical point - If one can handle that - a production site with an output of one hull per week could be possible...

[wellmer]

...quite fascinated with the Ben Franklin Gulf Stream Project

Yes Ben Franklin is the starting point for a a complete different brand of "submarining" not only from the point of view of the revolutionary static diving and stability concept - also from the motiv - just be in the ocean and enyoy it.

[wellmer]

http://www.underseavoyager.org/
info@underseavoyager.org


When Scott Cassell was a boy of six, he saw a movie that would set the course of his life. Jules Verne’s
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. As Scott watched the Giant Squid attack the Nautilus somehow he
knew his life would involve the ocean, submersibles and Giant Squid. In elementary school Scott read
about the “Deepest Dive” of the US Navy’s Bathyscaphe ‘Trieste’. This amazing machine took two
people diving 7 miles straight down the bottom of the ocean, the Challenger Deep of the Marianas
Trench. His imagination went wild as he designed submersibles, learned to SCUBA dive and then
became a commercial ‘hard-hat’ diver / welder at 15.

When Scott was a young man he met someone that would soon become his best friend, adopted father
and mentor in undersea exploration, Dr. Andreas Rechnitzer.
Dr. Rechnitzer’s achievements are what the history books are made of. Andy was one of the very first
divers in the US and developed a SCUBA dive-training program that was the basis for the modern day
world wide recreational SCUBA certifying agencies. But it was after they became friends that Scott
learned that it was Andy that developed and ran the historic program of the Bathyscaphe ‘Trieste’ and
the ‘Deepest Dive’ into the Challenger Deep that Scott idolized as a kid!

Andy encouraged Scott to enter the world of submersibles and soon thereafter Scott earned the
prestigious title of U.S. Coast Guard rated submersible pilot / captain.

It was through Andy that Scott met another historic figure, the man responsible for building America’s
first deep submersible, the ‘Deep Jeep’, Will Forman. The Deep Jeep was piloted by then U.S. Navy
Lieutenant Will Forman reaching the amazing depth of 2,000 feet deep and provided the US Navy with
information that led the US in a new direction of powered submersible exploration.

When they met, Will was working on a human powered submersible, the DaVinci II and Scott quickly
volunteered to help. Scott found himself in Will’s back yard where this magnificent machine was
engineered and built. As Scott helped lower the DaVinci II into the test pool right next to the garage,
Will mentioned another project he always want to do but never did. It was called the Ocean Voyager
and Andy was also interested in it.

What was the Ocean Voyager’s mission? To explore entire oceans as a gigantic scientific transect in
order to advance man’s understanding of the global oceanic environments.

The Ocean Voyager concept vehicle was a 100 foot long submarine that was capable of reaching
extreme depths down to 20,000 feet. It needed to do this for an incredible reason; it was to be an
undersea glider! It was going to glide great distances just like a sailplane glider, just underwater.
Designed as sleek as a shark it had three 9 foot interior diameter glass spheres that made up the
pressure hull that would support the human crew of three, the life-support control station and the
scientific data collection instrumentation. The remaining 70 feet of the glider was filled with a massive
gas chamber and hydrazine pellets that when mixed with seawater create a (highly explosive) gas that
would provide positive buoyancy bringing the glide slope upwards, then when the massive undersea
glider was near the surface the gas would be vented just enough to allow slight negative buoyancy
and the glider would descend along a glide slope.
This energy efficient system would not only be new, but would provide silent propulsion allowing the
science crew to ‘hear’ the sea life as never before. But, the project was cancelled before it ever began
in the early seventies.

In Summer 2003 Scott revisited the discussion about the Ocean Voyager concept with Andy. Andy
reinforced the earth’s need for such a project considering the failing fisheries, the seas potential effect
of climate, and many things that remain a mystery to man within the vast oceans. After a long heart-felt
discussion, Scott made a promise that would set a new course of his life.

He promised Andy that if he can design a method to perform the Ocean Voyager concept in the modern
economy, we would do it.

Since Andy’s passing on August 22nd 2005, Scott has made the Undersea Voyager Project his life’s
mission. He promised his life’s mentor, and he promised mankind.

With a stroke of luck, Scott read an article about the “X Prize” and man’s efforts to design and build a
private sector reusable manned spaceship. The idea was that independent people could out perform
the giant bureaucratic machine of government funded space programs by innovating smaller simpler
systems. With this basic concept Scott had an epiphany. “Why go weeks underwater with a giant
submersible that cost 100s of millions of tax payers dollars, when you can refit smaller, cheaper
submersibles to do a better job at a fraction of the cost and use private fund sources?”

This way the program can actually do more, include the world’s scientific community easier and can
cross more than just the major oceans but the entire global undersea environments and be a global
project rather than a military / national one. With this concept, the Undersea Voyager Project was born.

Scott is a man of his word. To date he has methodically assembled an incredible team of space
explorers, undersea explorers, scientists, philanthropists, and engineers.
He has developed the UVP into non-profit status, acquired the proof of concept submersible, and has
raised money to refit it to the new mission requirements.

UVP has successfully and graciously received support from key organizations for sponsorship including
Deep Sea Power and Light, OTS, Pentax, Blue Steel (Faber) and DeepSea FX.

The Trilobite will launch in November 2008 for sea trials.

The bottom line:

The promise is happening…
----------------
What do you think about the Ocean Voyager’s concept, the and hydrazine pellet propulsion ? Would a gas producing chemical be a viable option for a emergency blow out? ... anybody a serious opinion on that?
----------------
Cheers,
Wil
concretesubmarine.com (http://concretesubmarine.com)

[harlemriverman]

Hello harlemriverman,

I have 2 structural engineering questions.

1) In a concrete sub with the characteristics of my hulls (4,6m outer Diameter - 34cm wall thickness) would you expect Buckling to be a problem or a expected failure mode?

2) If you take such a hull to some 30m depth as we are planning - what percentage of the real concrete strength do you use?
How does this safety factor compare to typical safety factors in high rise building?

Thanks,
Wil

i don't know wellmer, but good questions. buckling in a concrete structures is a failure mode typical of special load conditions. under static analysis or a static math model we can take the structure to sudden or catastrophic failure. the model makes a great many number of assumptions that are seldom true in their entirety, and my practical experience is the weakest link in a buckling are design error / omission for special load conditions or, quality control issues during construction. its more academic because the strength of materials is not my principle concern right now, its a host of more practical considerations that evidence themselves as we reflect on the math of a model. something i cannot answer right now.

regarding safety factors, i'm not sure there is a direct correlary to high rises and submarines. those of high rises range from 1.5 to 2 typically, but this involves judgement calls based on knowns, unknowns, and risk. further the failure of a high rise, for example, spells doom for the structure but not its occupants. consequently here, in this country, we provide duplication inherent to life safety issues. under a high rise scenario, occupants can still leave a building after it has been damaged beyond repair. that's going to be a very different scenario for a submarine i would imagine, where the options are either some sort of james-bond escape module, hot looking girl attached, or some sort of controlled failure mode that allows life safety.

short story, you either make it so that occupants can escape upon failure, or failure is such that the submarine can surface and return safely to port in a damaged condition. with concrete, this necessary involves steel. somewhere, and the game is on to figure out just where.

[MikeJohns]

Harleriverman

If you are a 'concretexpert':) we might go somewhere here.

Determine the stresses and then design the structure to resist them. The stresses are easy for this application and size but it's impossible to comment with any validity because there is no detail. The design also varies from the egg principle since it has holes in it.

Concrete is more elastic than people realise with a much lower youngs modulus than steel. I asked before what the youngs modulus of the mix was, but no reply.

It's highly probable that the steel will be the cause of the matrix micro cracking which will then propogate with each cycle, without a mechanism to prevent crack growth such as fibres in the matrix fatigue could be a real issue. I am particulallry concerned about areas such as the internal rigid bulkhead in connection with the hull. This is a concern for cyclic fatigue. But we cannot even estimate the strain without the steel schedule.

What factor of safety? Given the indeterminacy of the predictions for internal stresses a high FOS would be a sensible design target.

If operational load is 30 tonnes per square meter, add the FOS and analyze the strain, detail it in cross section and we'll have a good indication. This should be a starting point.

After a basic design schedule the next step would be to see just how the cuttouts affect the structure and the cuttouts are another worry for me.

Wilfreid doesn't appear to be approaching this as an engineered design but is basing it on observations of static structures and a "suck it and see" approach.

Isotropic materials are so much more predictable and relaible long term. The operational depth of a Uboat was 300 ft with 19mm thick pressure hull that was simply a 3m pipe section with transverese frames. If you want an operational depth of 100 ft (30m) then scale it accordingly and it's very easy to work, coat it with epirez 3mm high build epoxy and it will be just as durable.

Do you have any software for FEA reinforced concrete analysis ??

[harlemriverman]

we use integrated engineering software (ies) to model.

i'm with you on the strategy, and hoping to get some more information from someone that posted practical perspectives on shotcrete. lost the thread but was insightful in terms of the stresses that subs face, something i have to image.

i'm with you on the egg principle too, and i'm starting with fc = 6,000 psi. this gets sketchy in terms of assumptions on the aggregate since the over all theme here seems to be eliminate steel.

i'm not of fan of fiber, but clueless on what the marine world has developed over the years. and i'm more concerned really with the means / methods of construction than the absolute purest math of it all.

fos seems a pressing question here, i'm really not there yet. in our approach to design of more radical structures we start with failure modes, then isolate special load conditions towards redundancy that is practical but on target with the risks. becomes an exhaustive, iterative process and right now i'm marching down the road of hybrid of wellmer's concept. fos will follow on a finite basis, with some systems perhaps in the conventional ranges of 1.5 to 2.0 but some systems may require higher fos depending on their load conditions and role in the structure. i'm so far from there right now i need to just do it on the math model side.

30 t / m2 is a start, and makes sense given my understanding of the service loads for this vessel. many, many apologies all but i'm not a ship designer. this is not what i do, but its a good exercise certainly.

what do you mean by cuttouts?

[MikeJohns]

.....what do you mean by cuttouts?

Ports and hatches presumably with sturdy steel frames (Wilhiem)?
What does all this do when we squeeze it lots:)

cheers

[harlemriverman]

ah, cutouts...what i am referring to as special load conditions. these concentrate loads in ways that do not compliment the strengths of concrete, typically calling for reinforcement to communicate the loads, typically more of a confinement issue with, for example, the ends of a support wall. thin members become impractical to fabricate where, again for example, converging steel reinforcement to a radial point as in a circular hatch creates geometry problems for the aggregate.

[MikeJohns]

The russian concrete submarine hulls use finely ground ceramic mixed with cement. No aggragate just a dense high strength mortar. They dont have steel in the mortar but do have a thick kevlar lining bonded to the inside.

I think as soon as you start using embedded steel and coarse aggragates you rapidly increase the micro-cracking with each makor load cycle, this starts at aggragate boundaries and more importantly at the steel interface. Then there's the stress concentrations at those darned cutouts which will be the real bugbear.

I had a quick look at the IES site It's not an ideal tool for this.

Even then we are not analyzing Wlifrieds design since he simply doesn't give any detail. The russian design is fairly indicative of what is required for high pressure reliability.

[harlemriverman]

roger that mike, good intel and thanks. kevlar is a big head-start. in your research with russian design, was their any reference or discussion of alkali silica reaction.

ps. are your referencing the use of a depeleted uranium dioxide?

[MikeJohns]

No I was wondering about ASR, no reference to pozzolanic additives and I know nothing of ceramic-cement motars. The Russian mix is basically a high compressive strength; cheap and as close to an isoptropic material as they could manage. No Uranium dioxide either.

[harlemriverman]

mike, you're dead-on with ies. crashed a model of the bow last night twice, sitting in a public hearing with a land use board while occasionally glancing up in agreement. i have to do it in panels but at this point i’ve answered my own questions with this exercise.

wellmer, here's where i'm at with your proportions of 10cm shell thickness to 20m diameter unreinforced concrete submarine.

1. under submerged 30m service loads that you propose, the 10cm unreinforced shell does not work. deflection and cracking. solution is steel, and 30cm is the thinnest I could estimate with steel and membrane. an alternative is to pressurize the cabin but this imposes onerous operating restrictions that i imagine are contra to your objectives for a recreational application...the vessel would be more of a self-propelled commercial diving bell of sorts if pressurized.

2. under surface / dock conditions, steady sea state and gentle winds, the unreinforced vessel also does not work irrespective of practical shell thicknesses. requires skeletal structure and reinforcing steel both. keel / ribs and the need for these getting exacerbated with dynamic loads of a sea condition. special load conditions associated with cleats and cutouts are also problematic for unreinforced cases. could fabricate specialty docking saddles / cradles but that’s restrictive on where the vessel can dock. Cutouts work if there are steel bushings and frames attached to steel, and more analysis is needed as to where and how these assemblies are constructed. you need to be careful with load distributions and differential deflection, so not to cause cracking, leaks, etc.

3. under dry dock conditions, the unreinforced shell requires continuous bracing along bottom membrane with virtually zero deflection, which is impractical. with steel the upper sections need stringers with cribbing and blocking systems that are far more involved compared with a steel vessel, otherwise you will have extensive cracking in areas like the tower. one approach to cribbing might be to keep the formwork used during construction as the cribbing. the most challenging elements to support in dry dock will be the aft fins and screws, and forward or tower fins, as required.

4. under sea state conditions, regrettably i didn't get there with the model. the areas that i wanted to study were various sea conditions, effects of friction and wind, and vibration.

willmer, as i reflect on this brief yet challenging exercise i have still more questions than answers on your project. you have embarked onto a fascinating topic in mechanics of materials and i have especially enjoyed the exchanges with mike johns.

[wellmer]

Now that raw hull building is almost finished i can share pictures and video.

Get a look at Ian's Yacht Sub at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLv22CPYFSo

http://imulead.com/tolimared/concretesubmarine/image/sub-jan.jpg

Cheers,

Wil

[harlemriverman]

appears there is some hefty reinforcing steel in the exposed aft section and shell is considerably thicker than 10cm you had proposed earlier, what did you end up doing for a design?

[wellmer]

appears there is some hefty reinforcing steel in the exposed aft section and shell is considerably thicker than 10cm you had proposed earlier, what did you end up doing for a design?

This is necessary in case of heavy collision - i want a shaft break before a hull breach. On this hull minimum thickness is 20cm in tail section (sorry - i did not propose 10cm for a 18m hull - that would be less than a third of what i would recommend... even the 20 ton - 10m prototype had thicker walls...)

Cheers,

Wil

[harlemriverman]

what did you end up doing about vibration?

[wellmer]

what did you end up doing about vibration?

I do not expect vibration to be an issue in this boat.

...loads in ways that do not compliment the strengths of concrete

Concrete in submarine applications up to 1000m depth is well tested, well understood, well documented, and well studied...

...load cycle...

Concrete floating structures in marine ambient generally are supposed to take a order of million load cycles per year and have a service life of 100 years. In this conditions cycle load is considered a "non issue"...


Cheers,

Wil

[harlemriverman]

wil, i'm asking questions from the perspective of no knowledge of or experience with concrete submarines. outside of this thread i've never heard of such a thing. certainly opens the door for questions but you're responses are defensive and make little sense. you don't anticipate vibration to be an issue so you ignore it? 100 year service life? come on man, just be genuine. you've case a concrete vessel, that seems real enough, but the way you handle questions and back-track on your own assertions is confusing.

i wish you much success with your project but it doesn't feel like that's where you're headed, not from the way you're communicating anyway.

[wellmer]

wil,.... outside of this thread i've never heard of such a thing...

...if you are engineer you should have heard about concrete structures land based and marine ones...i assume...except you are living and thinking in a very small box...i don't see a reason why a sub hull can't be taken as just another structure...the problem seems to be mental - not engineering - in fact a pressure loaded concrete tube under mild cycle load is not really a engineering issue that needs tons of "rocket science tec mec discussion" - The really intersting questions is about practical application in submarine yachting and the best way to pull it off...

...responses are defensive...
Excuse me if my responses to attack are defensive...

... responses ...make little sense...

They should make sense to a open minded engineer...i get daily feedback from people for which my responses make a LOT of sense...i do not aspire to convince everybody who is out there...this would be a impossible task.

..don't anticipate vibration...

I have heard and read about the "vibration issue" on nuke sub due to their building and speed carackteristics - fact is - i do not build a nuke sub, i do not speed like one - so the issue is a NON-issue, it was a non issue in the prototype and it will be a non issue in this boat based on the experience of the prototype. But i will test that out in detail and share the info with you.
Honestly i think the basic problem is still that you seem still mentally entangled in the military sub segment.

...100 year service life? come on man...

Yes, please update with the corresponding studies about load cycles on floating concrete structures in severe marine ambient...

...the way you handle questions is confusing....

Sorry if i confuse you - i just try to get my project forward - if you are not on board for now that is sad - maybe we make another intent to get you on board a bit later when the boat is out and navigating. ;)



Cheers,

Wil
concretesubmarine.com (http://concretesubmarine.com)

[harlemriverman]

i'm niether on board nor not on board wil and my sole wish for you is much success with your project. i'm not challenging or doubting your ambitions either, although i am again taken back by the tone of your postings.

i don't design marine vehicles. i design and build buildings, bridges, etc and aside from the occaisional concrete tank or pier we don't encounter concrete submarines in my world. i simply don't know anything about them. and i found no light in taking some time to model the vessel you had proposed earlier. mathmatically you seem to be headed in the right direction with a thicker envelope and steel reinforcement and again, best of success to you and your project.

[wellmer]

i'm niether on board nor not on board wil and my sole wish for you is much success with your project. i'm not challenging or doubting your ambitions either, although i am again taken back by the tone of your postings.

i don't design marine vehicles. i design and build buildings, bridges, etc and aside from the occaisional concrete tank or pier we don't encounter concrete submarines in my world. i simply don't know anything about them. and i found no light in taking some time to model the vessel you had proposed earlier. mathmatically you seem to be headed in the right direction with a thicker envelope and steel reinforcement and again, best of success to you and your project.

Hello Harlemriverman, i am happy that you are still on board. I would ask you to make your mind free of the "concrete submarine idea" for a minute and do what my old physics teacher told me. If you have a appearantly complicated problem - split it down into simple detail problems. A submarine is basicly a submerged tube - OK? So can you think about "pressure loaded concrete tubes" in your engineering world ? When you give me a yes for this i would say - well, how do you calculate the pressure resistance of a tube in the most simple way. As a engineer you would come up with a arch calculation - right? You can imagine a tube as a series of arches. What is the problem that makes the thing complicated - obviously Buckling - so if you make the tube sufficient thick to exclude buckling as "expected failure mode" you get a relative simple calculation where the material compression strength is the determinating factor. Next step you test your simple calc on a series of models in real world to see if the test results supports that idea - you will find they do.
I know that if you look it sufficently detailed the problem can always be "made much more complicated" - but baseline is - a concrete tube with the characteristics i propose - submerged - calculates and models very well with a simple arch calculation that a first semester student can do with paper and pencil in a few minutes and was well understood by roman engineers some 2000 years ago. So there is absolutly no "rocket engineering" in the basics. If i can get a YES for the idea that it "might be structurally possible to submerge a concrete tube" i would like to take you to biology. - the submarine was not invented by the military it was invented 400 million years ago by mother nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautilus

...pressure resistant (imploding at a depth of about 800 m) ...

This little submarine has nothing else than a pressure resistant shell a biological water pump for bouancy control and a basic propulson and steering.

Can we part from the hypothetical approach that ANYTHING a nautilus don´t have but a modern sub has, is basically a "military driven need" that has nothing to do with the requirements of just hang out in the ocean and pass well.

If i could get a YES for this - we could start a interesting dialog about what a "nautilus like leisure boat for human ocupancy" would require.

I would say a hull shape of this kind would be nice:

video concrete submarine hull
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLv22CPYFSo

My current submarine yacht project:

http://imulead.com/tolimared/concretesubmarine/image/sub-jan.jpg

I am working on it...

Cheers,

Wil

[harlemriverman]

A submarine is basicly a submerged tube - OK? So can you think about "pressure loaded concrete tubes" in your engineering world ?...As a engineer you would come up with a arch calculation - right?...Buckling...there is absolutly no "rocket engineering" in the basics...If i could get a YES for this - we could start a interesting dialog about what a "nautilus like leisure boat for human ocupancy" would require.

that's an excellent approach wil, and a good overview of how we approach design in general.

its certainly how i developed the math model for the earlier model we discussed, which was an unreinforced thin-wall concrete vessel. buckling was a service condition that could be managed. there were other issues however for the thin-wall model, issues that you seem to be avoiding from what i can see in the photos.

in my math model i inverted the forces on an unreinforced concrete tank to simulate water pressure on sections of the submarine. sea water density and 6ksi x 1/4" concrete. sea water density. a static condition compliments the shape, but then i applied load conditions to simulate what i imagined might be service cases. granted, i was sitting in a public hearing late at night most of the time that i was doing this on my laptop. nonetheless a tubular shape, such as the leg of an oil rig or the like, is generally complimented by the inversion of forces and buckling is only a problem when the forces exceed the compressive strength of the concrete, which as you point out is a shell thickness game.

what i observed, which is not in the math of it all per se, is the quality assurance and control during forming of the work would be extraordinarily high. beyond normal, and i was concerned with the heat of hydration the during curing process. these are all manageable

i repeatedly crashed my software with the conical nose and eventually broke that down into a finite analysis of panels, which necessarily require steel.

the special load conditions that did not work without steel, and a lot of it, were in the tower, controls, shaft / tail section, and keels / ribs. what i found was that service loads for dry-dock in particular were exacting. for example, cribbing or chalks would need to replicate the geometry of the shell with exacting precision and steel is necessary to carry point loads. it would take very little error in the unreinforced model for catastrophic failure, and with reinforced concrete sufficient rigidity in the structure to prevent cracking.

service loads for dock / mooring produces the same point loads, and i used a single case of windage to model these loads. again, steel is needed.

what i didn't get into was vibration, which by instinct is my single largest concern. from a practical perspective. my guess is that a physical, operational concrete submarine can be produced. diving bells and more static service cases could also be produced i would imagine. but the long term effects of vibration, either internally generated or produced through say cavitation, would have a deleterious effect in ways that i would again imagine are more associated with operating / maintenance costs. seems the vessel would have limits on its operating capabilities and service conditions.

best i can offer wil and again much success. its an ambitious plan indeed.

[Kay9]

What are you useing/going to use for ports and through hulls?

K9

[Julius]

Nice to see some progress!

I noticed though that the hull is quite a bit more irregular than the one of your prototype. Did you run in production problems due to the bigger scale?
And how do you plan to move the hull into the water (as I can not see any preparations for that)?

Oh and what type of black paint have you applied and for which reason?

One final question: What is the internal volume of that hull?

[diverdan55]

Hello Wil,
I am and have been a certified scubadiver for well over twenty years now,am also pretty familiar with, but no expert in math and nautical design,pressure at depth,bouyancy and even some 'home slab' reinforced concrete construction,etc....But I am also a dreamer/amatuer designer/model-builder of science and future technologies when I am not working at my full time job...:)
And I see future possibilities for countless concrete undersea habitats,submersable transportation to and from different areas and habitats built around the world.
An interesting future thinking book along these lines is the 'Millennial Project' by Marshall T. Savage....
I have been enjoyably looking over your website and reading many of the threads here on your concrete submarine and your and others testimonials and comments made and I am finding the possibilities and ideas of a submersible,ocean voyaging,habitation,long range yacht, a very interesting,thought provoking,design concept and obviously proven possible by you for ten years now in your own research/prototype and in production phases you are progressing in already...
I am new here tonight, to this forum and I am just interjecting some questions, thoughts,ideas,possiblities, and possible design plans and idea that I am doing on my own and researching on my own.
Some questions for thought I have are as follows for my own prototype design idea are:
#1 Shallow diving and working depths ie. from surface to 60 feet maximum with necessary safety factors included in the design, to at least double the working/cruising depth or a bit more? Not meant to be fast or a deep diving design!!!
The majority of vivid colors and interesting sea life live less than 100 feet under the surface and in and near the coral reefs and shoal areas...
#2 One uniform/complete cast hull construction of steel reinforced concrete approximately 4 inches plus in wall thickness with necessary form and function bulkhead walls to designate any necessary support to structure/ living/working/engine areas.
More in the design/shape ideas and thoughts of a 'Jellyfish' shape,ie. dome like on top,entry/exit hatch on top and more substantially flat surfaced on the bottom with additional space underside,designed,cast and hydrodynamic,streamline molded on underside for additional ballast,diesal fuel and large enough in design for appropiate size air chambers for ascent and decent control?
#3 Allowances for larger acrylic viewing windows or ports especially on bow position in consideration of maximum shallower depths of operation and normal cruise depths of under 5 atmospheres pressure at depth,ie. under 100 psi pressure on hull and window ports?
* Safe Diving and Design Limits Not to exceed dives of 150-200 feet maximum
#4 Dimensions possibly 30 feet in diameter and a height of possibly 8 feet plus?
Not only a form of long-range transportation but large enough to also be a mobile habitat in the sea for 2 to 4 occupants...
*Obviously which would require building site(s) near coastal zones or areas
#5 Approximately 700 + square feet of living and working space for 2 -4(possibly parents and two young children)occupants and small engine room/shop and with enough added dome height for possibly a second level main command/navigation/charting/driving and control area?
#6 Lower first level would be allotted for living working,sleeping and undersea viewing/entertainment in forward bow area?
#7 Control surfaces would be similar in nature and design to airplane rudder and elevator type at stern?
I am working currently on simple basic drawings and building a 1 inch to 1 foot scale model of this to have my drawings and model photographs notarized and copywritten to date.
I would enjoy your and anyone else in the forums feedback as to the possibilities of a shallow-diving,long- range cruising yacht/habitat of this design being a feasable project?
Best Regards,Dan

[wellmer]

Hello Dan,

In fact i am exploring some of the possibilities you are mentioning here with serious investors - so i am sure we will do interesting things here...

What concerns depth - the general mark for floating and other submerged concrete pressure structures is about 300m. Extensive research has been done for 1500m.

Marine ambients create about 1mio load cycles/year (wave action) and concrete structures are considered safe under such conditions up to 100 years of service life.

So this opens a wide field of private submarines, floating habitats, sea steading, stream turbine applications and much more...

http://imulead.com/tolimared/concretesubmarine/image/aaa-submarine.jpg

here are some new pictures of my current project. A private submarine yacht 200 tons for a california customer.

Cheers,
Wil
http://concretesubmarine.com

[gideon0223]

I realize this is a boat design forum but since you guys are discussing concrete subs I wanted to throw an idea out there.

What is the possibility of building a concrete diving suit. Something with articulated arms maybe but an essentially enclosed main body. I envision it looking like the WASP Atmospheric Diving suit (http://www.oceaneering.com/uploadedImages/Subsea_Projects/Diving/Pages/wasp_02.jpg).

Would still need the oil filled rotary joints but the rest of it is doable with the same design ideas. The suit would be thick and heavy but so are standard ADS diving suits and I would think a concrete one would be orders of magnitude cheaper.

Ideas?

[rwatson]

I realize this is a boat design forum but since you guys are discussing concrete subs I wanted to throw an idea out there.

What is the possibility of building a concrete diving suit. The suit would be thick and heavy but so are standard ADS diving suits and I would think a concrete one would be orders of magnitude cheaper.

Ideas?

dear oh dear oh dear dear oh dear dear oh dear dear oh dear dear oh dear
dear oh dear dear oh dear ....

is there no end of crazy cut price nuts out there ?????????

$30,000 is bloody cheap to guarantee of your safety when you are 150 ft down and have all that water on top of you.

Mind you , $200 of concrete and oil filled joints is a really cheap coffin ... go for it

[harlemriverman]

composites.

[Submarine Tom]

harlemriverman,

composites?

[harlemriverman]

comment to gideon, a concrete dive suit is an impractical turn in the road.

[capt vimes]

hi wil!

amacing project and i am very intrigued by your submarines.

has the idea of building a sub with 2 tubes ever crossed your mind?
i mean - 2 of your blimbs set up parallel and merged together at their thickest part over a reasonable lenght.
getting more living space without widening the blimbs and therfore also with no need for thicker concrete since the pressure the blimbs have to withstand is still the same.
the intersection needs to be supported efficently as well though.
the parts between the 2 hulls could be covered and formed hydrodynamicaly with rather cheap and thin material (glassfibre composit) provided the space covered by this "panels" gets submerged.

this would give you the oportunity to:
- place ballast "outside" the hulls and hence not breaching safety by installing extra portholes in order to release the ballast
- emergency bouyoncy equipmet could also very easyly be placed there (lifting ballons or such)
- you get 2 propellers thus increasing manoverability and with an diesel electric propulsion system there is still only need for 1 generator (big enough of course)
- if 1 hull brakes, you get a safe haven in the second provided the hatches in between are watertight and in combination with the afore mentionend emergeny bouancy devices the sub might even still float
- you will have a sort of platform for recreational use when at anchor, which could also be placed in the intersection

- construction will be a lot more complicated though......
regards

btw - the CO2 issue was mentioned in an old post....
did you know that it takes up to 10, 20 years for concrete to completly cure out?
all along this time CO2 is sucked up by the concrete and transformed by the chemical reaction therein to chalk.... it is not very much but clearly measureable as the failure of biosphere 2 demonstrated
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosph%C3%A4re_2

[mydauphin]

Just make submarine oval like russian subs, not as strong as but still pretty strong and much wider beam.

[ancient kayaker]

hi wil!

... has the idea of building a sub with 2 tubes ever crossed your mind? ...

Sounds like a good idea. Several pressurized aircraft were built with figure 8 hull sections. For an aircraft, the web joining the sides at the center where the section narrows is under tension. For a sub the web is under compression so it can be made of concrete like the rest. Works with the tubes side-by-side or one above the other.

[capt vimes]

.... For a sub the web is under compression so it can be made of concrete like the rest....

i haven't done any calculations on it, but it might not be the case....
the resulting force from the outside pressure works against the joints and thus creating a momentum, trying to flip the parts outwards .. my english is bad and i would like to find better words ...

nonetheless - the waterpressure at this section is working against this momentum and idealy equalizing it.
thourogh calculations have to be done in any case to determine wether the momentum or the waterpressure wins and the intersection needs to be designed accordingly - concrete pillars in case its under pressure, steel in case the momentum creates tension in this parts.

the good thing though is, that no matter how deep the sub desencds the forces are always coming the same way (pressure or tension) just increasing by depth.

[ancient kayaker]

I was basing my statement on a simple reversal of the figure-8 aircraft fuselage case, which can be demonstrated easily by squeezing a long balloon between 2 sticks. The Saunders Roe Princess flying boat was one of the earliest aircraft to have this fuselage profile.

In the submarine case, each segment considered alone has its skin under compression as a result of external pressure. When the 2 segments are joined together the vectors representing the tension in the skins resolves into a single inward force vector at the joint which must be balanced by compression in the web or partition between the segments.

Looking at the forces acting on the skin of one segment at the joint, the pressure inwards plus the skin compression plus the web compression form a trinagle of forces which cancel out (gravity ignored).

[wellmer]

hi wil!

amacing project and i am very intrigued by your submarines.

has the idea of building a sub with 2 tubes ever crossed your mind?

...

Yes, just for yachting purpose a 2 hull sub must be really big (around 1000 tons) or the living space gets the feeling of a "tunnel system" more than a "yacht ambient" so for small submarine yachts it is better not to fracture the space but maintain it in one piece. At the moment i am planning to seize up the concept another factor 10 this will allow 2 hull concepts.

What i am going for is that entering the submarine you get the feeling of being in the inside of lightful well ventilated yacht - very different to the "cave ambient" of a military sub. The foto below of the 20 ton sub (2.4m diameter) gives more or less the idea.

For the 200ton sub i am building the interior ambient will have even more light and a feeling of "space". At the moment i can not show you fotos of that as i am only done in raw building so interior is not finished yet. When done it will look wide and luxury class...
http://imulead.com/tolimared/concretesubmarine/image/bc-inside.jpg

http://concretesubmarine.com

[safffff]

I live by San Fransisco, will we be able to come to the docking of the sub your building when it arrives?

:)

[wellmer]

I live by San Fransisco, will we be able to come to the docking of the sub your building when it arrives?
:)

Hello safffff,

Ian, (the owner) is a really nice guy and he is assembling a team of "helping hands" right now. Please contact me at e-mail and i give you the mail to contact Ian.

Keep also in mind that the arrival in California may still take its time.

What i promised was a raw building time of 12 months (we kept it) and a budget frame (for raw building) of 331 Euro/ton (we kept it).

The building was the part i can control entirely so there is little third party interference that can bring up delays.

What comes now is a 150m movement to the water. We got a building site that far from water by administrative decision from our shipyard.

Of course the shipyard has the means to make this movement, the problem is they are changing the management right now. So there might pass weeks where we can not go on with the movement.

What comes then is the coastguard part. As it has been mentioned in this forum building a 200 ton private submarine in colombia is a project that rises some delicate questions. All our papers and permits (for building) are OK. But it is still a "experimental boat" and getting a permit for navigation and a flag might still be subject so some delay.

Recent changes in US laws "drug interdiction act" made the flag and registaration question a much more important one.

In fact shipping a half finished submergible hull with no flag to california could be interpreted as a crime with 15 years of jail. It is still possible to own and navigate a registered and flagged private submarine - but basicly the burden of prove is reversed. You must show that you are NOT a smuggler and can be captured if you fail to do so...

All in all there are still a lot of things to do that go far beyond proper nav lights and propeller adaption - and there are third parties that can cause big delays in the process.

Cheers
Wil
concretesubmarine.com (http://concretesubmarine.com)

http://imulead.com/tolimared/concretesubmarine/image/aaa-submarine.jpg

[mydauphin]

Suggestion, get a GPS tracking system that can be view via web. Give codes to Coast Guard, DEA, etc... That way they know you are not smuggling anything...

[wellmer]

Suggestion, get a GPS tracking system that can be view via web. Give codes to Coast Guard, DEA, etc... That way they know you are not smuggling anything...


In general i am not a big fan of "improving interdiction efforts" by "cutting back civil rights" - bugging homes and private boats ... i think boater community should insist in liberty of boat use and boatbuilding...there are better forms of being a "good ambassador of your sport" and cooperate with authorities so that our sport is not mis-used by the bad guys - which is finally in our common interest.

Cheers,
Wil

[Submarine Tom]

Couldn't agree with you more on that one Wil.

Cheers, Tom

[rwatson]

What comes then is the coastguard part. As it has been mentioned in this forum building a 200 ton private submarine in colombia is a project that rises some delicate questions. All our papers and permits (for building) are OK. But it is still a "experimental boat" and getting a permit for navigation and a flag might still be subject so some delay.

Recent changes in US laws "drug interdiction act" made the flag and registaration question a much more important one.

In fact shipping a half finished submergible hull with no flag to california could be interpreted as a crime with 15 years of jail. It is still possible to own and navigate a registered and flagged private submarine - but basicly the burden of prove is reversed. You must show that you are NOT a smuggler and can be captured if you fail to do so...

All in all there are still a lot of things to do that go far beyond proper nav lights and propeller adaption - and there are third parties that can cause big delays in the process.



I re-iterate the comment I made last December about this project

"I think that the forces of International Maritime law and Insurance will have an interest in something that might cause a lot of grief to their precious clients.
Imagine the damage to any boat over 30 ft in length bearing down on 20 tons of mostly submerged concrete at 15 knots or so.
I know that most coastal authorities (even in out of the way third world countries) are very upset at any craft that might require them to launch a rescue team at great expense and risk to life (try leaving Chile on balsawood rafts these days). "

This, and a few other observations I and others have made about the difficulties of actually "using" such a craft over the last 12 months will be starting to rear their feathered heads about now.

[mark775]

Imagine being in that dark tube poking your head out every few minutes looking for the Kobayashi Maru bearing down. Imagine doing it in pitching seas and a pouring rain driven by wind, then being totally at the mercy of the other crew standing a good watch AND understanding in another language that the thing that looks like the back of a blackfish actually has people aboard...
Fun projects but please don't go anywhere in these things.

[mark775]

Check this out: http://www.heartcoherence.com/stellatedtetra/
Ask Michael Sheppard how to make concrete twice as strong and not crack.

[wellmer]

... forces of International Maritime law and Insurance ...

Hello rwatson,
The last discussion about the topic "should the fierce forces of international maritime law bann a certain yacht design or yachting mode from the open oceans..." Was some years ago when the first catamaran type boats started to circumnavigate the globe...(among that my fellow austrian countrymen Wolfgang Hauser with Taboo1 a 10m kat...)

This discussion was also up in certain circles when single handed sailing started to be a trend...

As far as i am aware of the "fierce forces of world wide open sea control for private use" did not do so well until now - and i hope it will stay so for a while....so that we can enjoy free boat design and free yachting.

Maybe i sail the sub to melbourne - australia has non restrictive laws...on boat design...as far as i know...

I am also happy that colombian naval authority DIMAR is commited in its practical permit politics to create a "positive ambient for new naval developments" - as it is ordered by the colombian law.

For me as a person that has choosen colombia as second home this is a wise and visionary approach - especially taking into consideration that the country is just stepping out of a bloody drug war that has been won by a fierce politics of "democratic security" that has rescued civil rights and pushed back the cartels at the same time.

This is one of the reasons why colombian authority can count on my loyalty and cooperation - they do a great job doing the right thing for the right motive.

Cheers,
Wil

[rwatson]

A very interesting group of comments Wellmer - but inclined to miss the original points raised, I feel.

Australia , like every other modern maritime nation offers port facilities on a commercial basis, and insists on financial guarantees from boat owners.
I cant even store a 26 foot trailer sailer in a yacht club marina without 5 million dollars of third party insurance. How are you going to get this behemoth into any civilized berthing facility without the requisite insurance cover ? It sure isnt the type of craft you can pull in on a secluded beach.

All the Coastguards from Chili to Mexico are very averse to "risky" new ventures, (odd bits of "legislation" notwithstanding). From the rescue costs, to damage to civilian craft - you are going to be flat out convincing them to let you go for a test cruise, let alone make any substantial voyage.

The Navy won't be inclined to let an untried and massive vessel out amongst their expensive toys without some kind of financial guarantees.

Even moving the thing to the water is going to be a major administrative exercise in liability cover, and you are going to need some big funds to cover the exercise. The crane or transport company will not be keen pay for the personell cover involved.

Sure, everyone is very friendly and supportive while you are tooling around in a big shed out of everyones way, and perhaps paying some bills.

When it comes to really getting out in the water, you will find that there are very few officilas who are going to stick their professional careers on the line no matter how innovative and interesting your project is.

[wellmer]

Hello rwatson,

You think like a manager - in fact you must be a good one. In Management you always have a "posible problems to come up" list, and i have to give you that your "problem list" is quite complete, very acertive, well informed, and in fact it is almost exactly the one i am handling myself.

This "problems to come up list" is normally corresponded by a "strategies to resolve upcomming problems" list.

It seems to me that here is the point where we differ most - you conclude that the issues are imposible to overcome - i think they can be resolved - in fact i am good on track to do so.

To speak with Gorbatschov there are always things that are "part of the problem" and things that are "part of the solution".

I agree completly with you that insurances and standardisation in shipbuilding, is one of the core issues for ANY experimental boat.

The less "standard conform" your boat is the more "friction potential" with the established sistem your project has.

The political problem is, that if you implement "complete coverage of standard" you kill innovation. Or to to say it catchy - the poison is in the DOSE. So a wise shipbuilding politics will accnowledge the need and right of existance for both tendencies standardisation and innovation, control, and freedom, and will be focused to applie the right dose in the right segment.

So the real interesting question is: is there enough space of manouver to do this - and this depends widley on the country you are talking about, the acting persons and their "interpretation" of the laws, their "perception" of the involved risks, etc...

There was a political tendency to whipe out catamarans by applying a "capsize insurance" on catamaran yachts that would cover "supposed rescue efforts" ...

Being successful this initative would have limited yachts to "monohulls" for ever - i am glad that a much more moderate set of ideas finally implemented itself and we can enyoy catamarans on large scale today. What finally has changed was the "interpretation" and "perception" of capsize-ability and risk - seeing all those catamaran yachts touring around without "capsizing on a dayly base" took the wind out of the "prohibit that nonsense right away" - fans sails.

So you see such fluffy things like "interpretation" and "perception" can finally make the difference. Therefore for me any negative "interpretation" of "submergeability in private hands" is part of the problem - any positive discussion "part of the solution".

I do not agree that Navy and Coast Guard are rightaway "part of the resistance" i know a lot of nice navy and coast guard officials with a genuine love for the sea, a healty interest to push new frontiers, and they are "part of the solution".

You are surley right that nobody will put his career on line to get obstacles out of my way. So yes, the heavy lifting to get the permits, to build it, to put it into water, to show that this is enjoyable yachting in open ocean with a plus compared to surface yachts, - this is all my task.

But i think you should not only see the forces that are "part of the problem" there are also powerful forces (and people) that really want to see it happen and succeed - i found some allies on that way and i am doing just fine...

On this forum i have heared the words "i hope you succeed" several times. Fact is i already succeeded to apply submarine yachting in practice, to show the feasibility of the concept in a long term real world trial - and i am not allone in this.

What i now need to do is "publish the concept" establish a "movement of dedicated submarine yachties" rise financial, political, technical, support, get the muscle to overcome the resistance of the establishment.

I see Ian's boat as a important tool to do so.

If anybody wants to join me in that task - you are welcome!



If i missed a raised point - please let me know which one...

Cheers,

Wil
concretesubmarine.com

[Milan]

… 5 million dollars of third party insurance… behemoth …. berthing facility requisite insurance cover … Coastguards … Navy … moving … e.c.t….e.c.t….

Well, maybe it is difficult, but it seems that some people are already doing it. (And then in Europe, full of regulations…)

http://www.vimeo.com/976560

These guys are not there yet, but they are getting close and it seems that they know what they are doing.

http://www.euronaut.org/

[ancient kayaker]

Actually, Wellmer, RWatson is not trying to kill off innovation, just giving you a "head's-up" on the kinds of problems you may well face. For myself, I sincerely hope you succeed, and so does everyone on this thread.

[wellmer]

Milan,
Thanks, for mentioning the projekts of my "brothers in submarine yacht movement", Denmarks submariner Peter Madsden and Germanys u-boot engineer Carsten Standfuss.

In fact each of them represents a special segment in submarine yachting and each of those projects point to a possible future.

Peters last project "Nautilus" is of special interest because Peter literally lived in his submarine while building it. (and found a nice girl that moved in...)

On the other hand Carsten Standfuss is building "Euronaut" mostly as an extension of his interest in exploring and documenting historic shipwrecks in weekend expeditions. Most of those are in areas of intense ship traffic, so he could not anchor a boat - put on a dive flag and explore the wrecks. The need for a "submerged dive base" was born that way.

ancient kayaker,
-----------------

I know that watson is not going to shut down yacht building innovation globally - no man on earth would have the power to do so - and that is part of the solution.

rwatson,
----------

A intelligent Manager once told me - don´t talk about the problems - talk about the solutions.

If you check my concept you will find that it is consistently designed to avoid exactly the friction areas you are pointing out.

I do not need berthing and docking - the hull can stay afloat - all is designed for afloat repair - with a "estimated general lifetime of 200 years" and yes, the twin keel would even allow to pull it in on a beach in extreme cases. It is basicly designed to stay out of "yacht club marina" and be anchored in a open bay so will not be plagued by the 5 million dollars insurance your 26 foot trailer sailer is subject to.

I am serious (and tested this out in practice) when i say that a 200ton submarine yacht will have lower maintainance cost than the trailer sailer you mention.

In fact the decision not to use steel was in part motivated by the strong dependance of steel hulls on drydocks, shipyards, gritblasting, and service facilities due to the constant need of maintainance.

It is my intention to cut the friction points with a "standard and insurance driven ship/boat support sistem " that has a natural tendency to "resist and penalize" experimental boats as you mention in a very smart way.

I can imagine that the first generation of submarine yacht owners will be people that plan to live on the submarine yacht, (like peter Madsden) and they will not be permanent guests in "yacht club marina" they will adopt a very independent, almost semi-nomadic lifestyle somewhere half way between yachting and seasteading.

For doing so you need relative big live aboard submarine yacht hulls as a base to start with and this is basicly what i am going for.



Cheers,

Wil

[mydauphin]

That is a strange looking propeller. It looks like it is design to go in reverse. Any comments.

[wellmer]

That is a strange looking propeller. It looks like it is design to go in reverse. Any comments.

It has obvious mecanic advantages to have a prop turning this way - nothing strange about it - what you see on the picture is not the finished propeller (screw for submariners) ...

[mydauphin]

Thanks for answer. How did you arrive at this prop and what engine, transmission you have to turn it. I also wondering about docking such a boat with no thrusters.

I also see to no provision for anchors.

[dskira]

I think the flag will be not a problem since it will be not a submarine, (or even a submarine, one was for sale imported from Russia) but a concrete floating structure like a offshore oil platform. No crime to import anything in the States, never heard of that. They don't care about the country of fabrication, as long as the owner is honest. Drug as nothing to do. You can import anything, they do not care as long your papers are in order and you paid the duty. I don't know why you find interresting, Wellmer, to invent problems which do not exist.
Don't take it personaly, just I find your intervention bizarre. Importation are so easy for honest business man, which I am sure you are.

[mydauphin]

Lets say I build a boat in Colombia and bring it for sale in USA. Don't I need approve manufacture code, hin#, some kind of safety check.
I mean CG has specs on everything even on navigation lights. Where are you going to put green, red and stern lights... hull identification numbers,and everything else.

I do think it is little more difficult that a regular boat.

[dskira]

Mydauphin, I agree with you. Of course the boat as to be compliant within any maritime juridiction. It's like any other foreign boat, the manufacturer must put the boat within the US regulations and vice-versa. This is not rocket sciences, it just take professionalism and realism. At the end of the day the manufacturer is responsable of its creation and be sure the people are safe using it. Anybody with good intention, solid knoweldge, and ready to disclose all the plans paterning to the object, and the finish product is well within the juridiction at hand, can import. If it's a prototype it is even more easy. Passing 100 tons it is more thorough, but if a good naval architect agree to revise the Wellmer plans and put his name on the line, it will be not a hurdle. For Wellmer the hurdle will be to find the naval architect. That will be the hard part. You can't import a boat of this tonnage permanently without certified plans.
But I wonder why Wellmer want to import in the US, why not in the Bahamas, home of all the rich and famous in the world. Or France, the almost native contry of concrete boat, or Russia country of the best submarine designer in the world.

[Submarine Tom]

Lets say I build a boat in Colombia and bring it for sale in USA. Don't I need approve manufacture code, hin#, some kind of safety check.
I mean CG has specs on everything even on navigation lights. Where are you going to put green, red and stern lights... hull identification numbers,and everything else.

I do think it is little more difficult that a regular boat.

mydauphin,

Submarines don't show red, green and stern lights.

Have a look at those Coast Guard regs you refer to.

[mydauphin]

mydauphin,

Submarines don't show red, green and stern lights.

Have a look at those Coast Guard regs you refer to.

I can't find any CG regs on Submarines. Have you?

[Submarine Tom]

mydauphin,

Submarines are to display three all 'round reds in a triangular configuration.

[mydauphin]

mydauphin,

Submarines are to display three all 'round reds in a triangular configuration.

Wow, now I know what to look for....

[kc135delta]

Interesting that you all question the element of private submarines when they are operating quite successfully in Europe, UC3 (Denmark) is fully operational. Euronaut (200 tons - Germany) shall be operational within 18months.

UC3 first dive
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85apuqUzWCo

UC3 cruise
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNfCmKdoptg

[rwatson]

Interesting that you all question the element of private submarines when they are operating quite successfully in Europe, UC3 (Denmark) is fully operational. Euronaut (200 tons - Germany) shall be operational within 18months.


I dont think you have been reading the thread - how many CONCRETE submarines are in that bunch?

They are all engineer certified, insured, tested by 100 years of engineering research and practical experience with peer reviewed bulding methods and materials, driven by qualified and trained personell.

And they arn't going to be alternate marine habitats, with faces staring out of little portholes for a little bit of sunshine.

[wellmer]

http://imulead.com/tolimared/concretesubmarine/image/aaa-submarine.jpg

[rwatson]

Yaaaay - its out of the shed! Wahoo. No we are cooking!

[apex1]

Thanks for the pictures liar! They show very clear that you not only have no idea about hydrodynamics, you are not even able to produce a curved shape in concrete!
They show on top of that a German (or Austrian?) dive boat tested in a German or Austrian lake. What have YOU to do with this boat (apart from stealing the pictures)?

Ahh, now I´m quoting myself already.........................

[apex1]

I was under the impression that Wellmer built those protoypes???

Is that not so ?

Maybe, I do´nt know. But the boat shown in the pictures is tested at the "Attersee" in Austria and shows a much better surface of the concrete structure than the black toilet in Mr Ellmers backyard in Colombia. So I have my doubts.

Richard

[Submarine Tom]

Thank you for your last reply. Have you thought of building another sub to lower to great depths to test out when the hull fails. Maybe without windows. Would really like to see more interior pictures and of construction. Steve

Steven,

You are much smarter than I gave you credit. You thought of this before I

did! So, what's your estimate of it's failure depth?

-Tom

[apex1]

Steven,

You are much smarter than I gave you credit. You thought of this before I

did! So, what's your estimate of it's failure depth?

-Tom

Did you notice Tom, that our friend "steve" makes the same mistakes in English than our close friend Wilfried?

And did you notice he follows Wilfrieds footsteps?

Mr Ellmer really thinks we are as stupid as he is................

[dskira]

Steve, Saffffffffff, Welmer all these names are a comedy! Just to make believe that some one has interrest on the Wellmer sinking crap.
Safffffff and the other name you will use, you are a fake.

[Submarine Tom]

Catstrophic failure depth of Willy's c-sub destructive test wager board:

bntii: 85 m

watson: 0 m

s-tom: 312 m

KnutS: 74 m

Apex: 60 m

gonzo: 16.3 m

hoytodow: 45 m

That's an average of ~99 m (excluding watson who doesn't think the sub

will ever get wet). And ~56 m if you throw out my optimistic 312 m.

Lets go diving Willy!

[mydauphin]

Hi all. Been Gone for many months.. Concrete Submarine still hasn't move to US?
And yeah they need a better mold... How do you even get a texture like that?
May be the submarine is already working??? Do you see any water intakes or exhausts for diesels engine? How about any pictures of engine room? That would be nice. Show me a picture of real inside and I will invest... Later

[hoytedow]

Submarine is already working. It is holding down the driveway.

[Submarine Tom]

Wellmer and safffy,

What are your failure depth estimates and when is the test?

It's time to put your money where your mouth is and show us something

concrete!! OR, are you just full of hot air?

Catastrophic failure depth of Willy's c-sub destructive test wager board:

bntii: 85 m

watson: 0 m

s-tom: 312 m

KnutS: 74 m

Apex: 60 m

gonzo: 16.3 m

hoytedow: 45 m

Willy: ???

Safffy: ???

[gonzo]

Read my other thread and you will know why it hasn't moved. The new power package should fix that.
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/open-discussion/power-package-concrete-subs-30300.html

[tugboat]

still no news?...im gonna call him- i want the facts--not speculation.

to throw in my two cents worth--ive had concrete engineers i know look at Wils 200 tonner - (no im not Mr Ellmer posing as tugboat here)-
the hull is bona fide.
and if the sub is as thick as you can see in the youtube vids...then itll go deep. probably very deep like 300 meters- so add my wager of 300 m implode depth.
btw look at the vid --it aint no mockup! I wonder if its red tape holding him back?..after all he is based in columbia. I have read everything by mr Ellmer and i back him. Simply because he pisses certain people off. and if he is bona-fide...then its gonna seriously mess with peoples ideas of reality and what can be accomplished. plus im building my own...-(this should be interesting to hear who is gonna try to tell me im as crazy as Wil...i wont mention any names....yawn... ) but if mr Ellmer succeeds. and i believe in the end he will...this is good for all of us...i do wish he would tell us whats happening though.

[rwatson]

You are right Tuggy, its not a fake like some silly comments suggested, but it aint a roaring success. I bet the "investor" wouldnt hand over the progress payment after all the "press" on this website.

His website *still* reads

"We had a project funding in october 2008, the paperwork for hull building permits and the negociations with the shipyard took 2 months, we finished the raw hull building, as promised, within a 12 month period, in the sheduled time and budget frame. "

Sorry I was wrong about its functional depth estimate - I said 0, its looking more like +3 (3 metres above sea level) every day now.

Like I said back in 09-27-2008, 10:49 AM
"I bet the 200 ton model never makes it into regular use, if it is ever even launched."

[wellmer]

Paper Number 3011-MS
Title OCEAN IMPLOSION TEST OF CONCRETE (SEACON) CYLINDRICAL STRUCTURE
Authors Roy S. Highberg and Harvey H. Haynes, Civil Engineering Laboratory
Source

Offshore Technology Conference, 2-5 May , Houston, Texas
Copyright 1977. Offshore Technology Conference
Language English
Preview ABSTRACT

An ocean implosion test was conducted on a pressure-resistant concrete cylindrical structure to obtain the depth at implosion. The structure was a reinforced concrete cylinder with hemispherical end caps, twenty feet (6.1 m) in overall length, ten feet (3.05 m) in outside diameter, and 9.5 inches (241 mm) in wall thickness. The structure was near-neutrally buoyant having a positive buoyancy of 12,000 pounds (5.4 Mg) for a hull displacement of 85,000 pounds (38.5 Mg). The implosion depth of the cylinder was 4700 feet (1430 m). A predicted implosion depth, using an empirical design equation based upon past test results, was 16 percent less than the actual implosion depth.

INTRODUCTION

A pressure-resistant, reinforced concrete hull was constructed in 1971 as part of a Seafloor Construction Experiment, SEACON I. The structure was placed on the seafloor at a depth of 600 feet (180 m) for 10 months. Figure 1 shows the SEACON I hull prior to its ocean emplacement. Since its retrieval in 1972, it has been located in the open air about 150 ft. (50 m) from the ocean. In the summer of 1976, the structure was returned to the ocean for an ultimate load test, that is, the structure was lowered into the ocean until implosion.

SPECIMEN DESCRIPTION

The cylindrical structure was assembled from three precast, reinforced concrete sections. The straight cylinder section, 10.1 feet (3080 mm) in outside diameter by 10 feet (3050 mm) in length by 9.5 inches (241 mm) in wall thickness, was fabricated by United Concrete Pipe Corporation. The concrete hemisphere end-closures, 10.1 feet (3080 mm) in outside diameter by 9.5 inches (241 mm) in wall thickness, were fabricated in-house. Tolerances on the sections conformed to concrete pipe standards of not to exceed to ±0.75 inch (19 mm) for the inside diameter or minus 0.5 inch (13 mm) for the wall thickness.

Steel reinforcement in the amount of 0.70% by area was used in both the axial and hoop direction. Reinforcing bars of 0.6 inch (15 mm) diameter were employed throughout the structure. A double circular reinforcement cage was fabricated for each precast section; the concrete cover on the outside and inside reinforcing cage was 1 inch (25 mm). For the cylinder section, hoop rebars had a spacing of 27.25 inches (692 nm) and 31.25 inches (794 mm) for the inside and outside cages respectively.

The hemispherical end-closures were bonded to the cylinder section with an epoxy adhesive, no other attachment besides the epoxy bond was employed (Figure 2). The gap between the mating surfaces of the hemisphere and the cylinder was less than 0.13 inch (3 mm) for 75% of the contact area. Prior to epoxy bonding, the concrete surfaces were prepared by sandblasting and washing with acetone.

Source: http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=OTC-3011-MS&soc=OTC

:rolleyes:

PS: Posters on this thread (and similar) revealed the "level of their knowledge" sufficiently by their posts.... i am out until "talkworthy stuff" comes up...time is precious i am busy...will keep throwing some pieces of info in now and then - just for the contrast....

[tugboat]

Wil- and rwatson- i personally have never doubted the viability of concrete.

the only diff is- between steel and concrete- might be more difficult to get the thu hulls and hatches etc installed but easily doen with a bit of ingenuity and probably some good epoxy.
most likely easily solved...

RWATSON--i did send an invitation to hear your opinions about why you think the c-sub wont work on another post...is it because you believe that concrete as a material wont work?...because if so ..thats erroneous. is it because of financing or red tape?...to me that might be more reasonable...I applaud Mr Ellmer for his hard work. and vision in this area. I am happy to see he has posted and that he is still around--put yourselves in this mans shoes..he is coming up against great opposition simply because its not conventional. great men are always controversial. The fact he responds says to me..he isnt out of the game just yet. tell me one project that does not have issues and problems to solve??? its usually a rollercoaster ride...kudos for sticking to his guns...

Wellmer- what size engine are you using for the sub? i am very interested in what you would suggest for seals for a larger shaft say 2'' dia. for a larger motor? i was thinking of using o-rings. or there is a company that makes inexpensive high performance seals...good to 200-250 psi rotational. whats your take on something like that...

[dskira]

Wellmer your boyfriend Heki is not Swedish, and a scholar in Swedish to whom I show his post told me he is of a German country, or Austrian, not a Swedish.
Please leave the forum.
Your attitude has been despicable.
Daniel

[wellmer]

Tug,

power requirement of a submarine yacht of 18m is similar to a whale i recommend to go for just 50 horsepower for economic cruising at 5-7 knots (very different to power requirement of a surface yacht) link: http://imulead.com/tolimared/concretesubmarine/anuncios/av/

Shaft seal:
O ring seal is OK but there are better solutions. I prefer flat to flat sealing surfaces. (radial rotary seal) check "simmering seals" - i prefer to fabricate seals instead of buying them. If you can build it you can repair it. This is part of the "autonomous concept".

[dskira]

Tug,

power requirement of a submarine yacht of 18m is similar to a whale i recommend to go for just 50 horsepower for economic cruising at 5-7 knots ".

This again a proof of your total ignorance of naval architecture.

[wellmer]

This again a proof of your total ignorance of naval architecture.

Sure dskira, but what exactly do you refer to?

Does this mean that powering a 200 ton object with 50 horesepower is a design no Naval Achitect ever would do ? - if so - i give you that !

The design is not from a typical Naval Achitect - it is not even my design - it is the design of a Whale.

If you want to explain from the viewpoint of a Naval Architect why a Whale does not work as a "open ocean cruising device design " you have all my attention...

Or will you explain why simmering seals do not work on a sub? - or what is the ARGUMENT ... if there is one...

[dskira]

Sure dskira, but what exactly do you refer to?

Does this mean that powering a 200 ton object with 50 horesepower is a design no Naval Achitect ever would do ? - if so - i give you that !

The design is not from a typical Naval Achitect - it is not even my design - it is the design of a Whale.

If you want to explain from the viewpoint of a Naval Architect why a Whale does not work as a "open ocean cruising device design " you have all my attention...

Or will you explain why simmering seals do not work on a sub? - or what is the ARGUMENT ... if there is one...

It is difficult to argue with an ignorant who think he knows.
I argue that asking investor for something you can't comprehend and have no idea how it will work is plainly criminal.
If you had came her saying: he boys I have an idea can you help me? It will have been nice to help
But you came here with the intention of selling your product which do not exist, insulting all the submariners dead and alive by your arrogance and incompetence.
Then you committed unlawful act by supporting what heki did.
By the your bio is a fake.
All I said is just plainly the truth.

Daniel

[tugboat]

Wil, thanks--
dskira, when i started to design my sub- i built a model ballasted it and tank tested it - i build it to specs of the actual design. when i tank tested it, the sub was incredibly easy to propel. nothing like a surface vessel. It truly does not need very much hp...goes like a dart through the water when ballasted,,,try it at home youll see how little force is needed to keep it moving.

i looked at an old 20 hp petter marine engine. that would push the sub through currents easily at 3knots past the currents speed. the reasoning i wanted lots of troque was because my design is specific to certain areas id be travelling. there is one spot that has a 4 knot current so i need to be able to go into that area- and this petter 20 hp diesel will do that easily. also its economical. i also believe that any naval architect worth his salt will build a model.

Wil, do you mean that the seal surface is flat i.e. the surface of the shaft log would meet flat suface against flat surface?
how thick would you go for the shaft seal? if it was around 1- 2 inch shaft?...

and what do you think of the old petter for an engine? they are full of torque!! and very reliable. the engine is 1500 rpm.

[hoytedow]

Sure dskira, but what exactly do you refer to?

Does this mean that powering a 200 ton object with 50 horesepower is a design no Naval Achitect ever would do ? - if so - i give you that !

The design is not from a typical Naval Achitect - it is not even my design - it is the design of a Whale.

If you want to explain from the viewpoint of a Naval Architect why a Whale does not work as a "open ocean cruising device design " you have all my attention...

Or will you explain why simmering seals do not work on a sub? - or what is the ARGUMENT ... if there is one...Why does this whale's fluke look as though it was designed to flap backwards?

[wellmer]

Wil, thanks--

Wil, do you mean that the seal surface is flat i.e. the surface of the shaft log would meet flat suface against flat surface?
how thick would you go for the shaft seal? if it was around 1- 2 inch shaft?...

and what do you think of the old petter for an engine? they are full of torque!! and very reliable. the engine is 1500 rpm.

Tug it will probably be better we take our chat to a private space

[Jeff]

Since there has been no new news reported this past year, it seems this thread is not very productive any longer but rather just a rehash of the same, so it's time to close it. If there is something new, let's start a new thread.